Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. Sarngadharan

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. Missvain (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. Sarngadharan

[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)

PROD removed by Phil Bridger. Subject fails WP:NPROF. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Fails GNG and ANYBIO. Had a require clean up tag for 10 years. Kolma8 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a different researcher M. G. Sarngadharan with heavy citations on AIDS and leukemia, but the only significant scholarly work I could find by the one here (a researcher in commerce, not medicine) was a book "Financial Analysis for Management Decisions" with 19 citations in Google Scholar. That's not enough for WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, and even if the book were itself notable (say because it had multiple in-depth published reviews) the best we might do would be to redirect to an article on it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can someone please explain to me the striking of the nom statement? Dr. Universe (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of an account that was blocked before the nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2021 (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.