Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasanna Santhekadur

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prasanna Santhekadur[edit]

[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)

I don't see that this individual meets the criteria of WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:PROF. Sources given don't indicate that his books have won any awards or were reviewed, and the science award he won is not a major one. Google search for the name shows that he's published as a scientific author, but nothing that has garnered particular attention. Also possible conflict of interest. ... discospinster _talk 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources in search results. All sources on the current article are either self-published or unreliable. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - associate professors are rarely notable. Pinging DGG in case I'm wrong. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacking in acceptable resources. Barca (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. by our usual standards. 3 papers with 100 or more citations. This is sufficient to show influence in their field, and 100 is the level we've been consistently using for biomedicine, the most heavily cited field. This article was written (by the subject) in ignorance of our WP:PROF standard, without the papers or citations being mentioned, but I have added them. The only reason it's a week keep instead of a keep is that he is the principal author for only the one of the most-cited papers--judging not just by author position, but by where the work was done at that stage in his career. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 31 July 2019 (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.