Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dipnarine Maharaj

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dipnarine Maharaj

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article written by now banned promotional sockpuppet. No notability--the statement that he is a leading expert comes only from the blurb for his own book. Other references are press releases, or local publicity DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of around 10 in this highly cited field does not give a pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Sources likewise not impressive. Agricola44 (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The sources look like local news articles and other similar-quality publications that do not convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. And comparing his cites (100, 61, 51, etc on Google scholar) to the top-cited papers in stem cell transplant research (1115, 713, etc) makes the claim in the article that he's a leading expert in this area seem overblown. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.