Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Singh Nalwa (scientist)

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. Sandstein 07:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Singh Nalwa (scientist)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article went through speedy deletion and AfD years ago (See: [1]), with a result of 'no consensus'. This should be an uncontroversial deletion, in my opinion.

The page was originally created in user space in 2011 by a user named "Hari Singh Nalwa (Scientist)", possibly as an attempt to trick readers into thinking that Wikipedia had a real entry for this individual, when in fact it was only a user page. After this, IP user 66.133.228.211 and user Ukvariar (who have only ever edited on topics related to Hari Singh Nalwa), began editing the User:Hari_Singh_Nalwa_(Scientist) user page extensively. Another user noticed this and moved the page from user space to draft space. Ukvariar then promoted the article into an actual page.

As is indicated in the article, it has been tagged with substantial issues for many years with no improvement. It is completely without references, except to American Scientific Publishing (www.aspbs.com), which is a predatory publisher that was started by Hari Singh Nalwa.[2] This individual does have 91 Scopus-indexed papers and an h-index of 27 (h=52 on Google Scholar, but this notoriously includes many low-quality sources); however, many were published by his own predatory publisher, which has been flagged for curious citation patterns: [3]. This is an obvious vanity autobiography originally created in user space apparently to deceive readers, and it should be deleted. Even if he is deserving of an article, this one was written as an autobiography, is total junk filled with numerous unreferenced claims, and it needs to be nuked from space and started over. WP:NUKEIT Bueller 007 (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete scientist is non notable,I could not find any reliable reference about him Heshiv (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2018 (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.