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 discounting annons. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a vanity article. Has clear instances of self-edits and possible sock-puppet edits. Shushruth 03:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The four publications referenced appear to be in minor local journals, largely case studies. The BMJ claims are actually unrefereed responses to the BMJ's online bulletin board, and the other 'papers' in high-quality journals appear to be similar. Espresso Addict 03:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Espresso Addict's thorough research. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO based on WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Page looks fine to me. Rama's car 09:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above vote was made bu a person impersonating User:Rama's Arrow and has been blocked for it. He/she is more than likely the sockpuppet of a banned user. Ryūlóng 09:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very blatantly NPOV, and appears to violate WP:AUTO. Assuming the other facts are real and significant, I would be happy with a tidy-up. However, from the heavily non-neutral tone, it is possible that the claims or the significance of the achievements are bloated. Perhaps needs to be verified by an expert. Ohconfucius 09:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fear it will be difficult to find a suitable subject expert who has access to the relevant journals (J Assoc Physicians India & Medical Journal Armed Forces India). Espresso Addict 10:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. On 15 August 2006, I personally asked the page's creator to tidy it up and referred him to a number of our guidelines. However, this has been ignored for two weeks, during which the page has not been improved inline with the Manual of Style or our NPOV guidelines. Bob talk 10:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has a strong POV tone to it. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.

1. How much more does a person has to achieve to make himself worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia?
2. The doctor's biography has been published by Marquis Who’s Who (American publishers of biographies of the best in the field) in Medicine and Healthcare.
3. Certainly he meets the criteria for inclusion.
4. The journals (JAPI - Journal of Association of Physicians of India, and MJAFI) which find the research of the doctor published are indexed with Index Medicus and are highly valued in India.
5. Maybe a reconsideration is required against the verdict of deletion.
6. Necessary minor editing may be adopted if considered necessary in order to make the article more readable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.187.169 (talk) .

• Comment: The Journal of Association of Physicians of India is Medline listed, but I can't find Medical Journal Armed Forces India there. Espresso Addict 01:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC) *MJAFI link from medind now added for reference.[reply]

• Delete As no independent WP:RS reliable sources are used. Our standard for biographical notability is at WP:BIO, and Who's Who is intentionally not listed in that standard, as entries therein are often offered on a fee for inclusion basis. Article formatting is also definitely not in accordance with the Manual of Style, but that is not a reason for deletion. GRBerry 01:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - or atleast wikify --T-rex 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom ReverendG 05:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep has written original papers Doctor Bruno 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could you please clarify how simply writing an original paper (which almost all scientists and most physicians do) is a reasonable notability standard for inclusion, i.e., as differentiated from WP:PROF point 3, a significant and well-known paper or work? --Kinu ^t/_c 20:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Significant and well known are NOT OBJECTIVE criteria, but subjective criteria. Recognising Nutritional deficiencies (correctable cause) as a case of diarrhoea in HIV (at present incurable disease) is per se a notable achievement. I invite your attention to WP:PROF point 5 which suits this person adequately. Doctor Bruno 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I decided to debold your comment. And you're right, they are subjective criteria. I suppose based on my limited expertise as a healthcare researcher and a review of the articles themselves, I was not convinced per point 5... but obviously, other editors' mileage may vary. Nonetheless, thank you for providing the clarifications as to your position. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry for that bold text. That was a typo. I did not see the page after typing that comment. Well, you first said that you are not satisfied about 3. Now you say that you are not satisfied about 5 (after being pointed out) Can you be more specific as to what you expect per point 5 (as some one with expertise as health care researcher) so that it will be useful in future discussions _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think the original article was a copyright violation and part of it still exists. Links to Google (and other) searches do not meet requirements of verifiability, no original research, reliable sources and biographies of living people. It also has problems with NPOV. Unless someone digs up some proper references, it needs to be deleted. I removed all the crazy bolding and the circular internal links because it was too distracting and made it too hard to read. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete It's full of POV and needs a lot of cleanup. If the assertions in the article about the various medical discoveries are sourced and verified then I'd think it was worth keeping. As written, it should be deleted, especially if there are still copyright violations remaining. At minimum, those need to be deleted. Brian 17:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
• Delete. Who = who can be bought. Publications should interesting but unless full citations are advanced we shouldn't need to verify them. Will reverse my vote if relevant papers are cited and their impact is stated; otherwise would simply fail WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 18:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Won't it be better and justified to enquire the credentials of Marquis Who’s Who.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.74.46 (talk • contribs)
• Keep per Doctor Bruno Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. --Ragib 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Can someone please help with the minor editing and wikify the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.65.9 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete without prejudice of recreation if his work can be shown to be verifiably important or notable. Virtually every study in Pubmed reflects some sort of "first"; I'm not convinced his "firsts" are sufficiently important or notable (per WP:PROF). (Closing admin: please watch for 219.64.XXX.XXX socks.) -AED 05:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong Keep - Based on this article he has made significant contributions to the health profession. Work like this is vitally important and rarely recognized due to the technical nature of the material. His work establishes a foundation for many other sciences. I think it needs a rewrite, though, and clean up. Additional comment: I changed this to strong keep. His work with malaria alone makes him notable, in my opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KarateLady (talk • contribs) KarateLadyKarateLady 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable as per nom. Style nauseating. Nephron  T|C 03:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:VANITY ~ trialsanderrors 05:04, 2 September 2006 (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.