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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anisur Khuda-Bukhsh[edit]

Anisur Khuda-Bukhsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:PROF. The only independent source that names him is Scroll.in, describing an industry event of no actual significance. His claim to fame is a paper from a dozen years ago purporting to show that homeopathic arsenic can cure arsenic poisoning. This has not been replicated. That does not necessarily disqualify him from notability - Jacques Benveniste is known primarily for his fraudulent work on homeopathy - but in Benveniste's case we have non-trivial coverage in substantial sources, whereas here we have only clickbait. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud? Guy, your defamation is awful. The Benveniste experiments never shown fraud: Mr. Randi said: "Their report avoided any charge of fraud". Guy, Wikipedia need bans the pseudoskeptik liars. 67.171.65.25 (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meets WP:PROF. His h-index is 32, which is pretty high, and he holds the Emeritus professor position in India, which is the one of the highest academic positions in India. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Emeritus_Professors_in_India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.65.23 (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added few external links like an article in New Scientist, which is a prestigious science magazine, covering his research, and a very recent (2015, Nov) mention in Nature Asia. With an h-index of 32 and a research mention as recent as November, 2015, doesn't seem to me that his "claim to fame" is just one "paper from a dozen years ago". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.65.23 (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 67.171.65.23 (come create an account and join us!) -- the references to the quality of work in New Scientist and Nature Asia check out. AGF on the high h-index, especially given the difficulty in establishing notability in Indian research sources and WP:BIAS this looks like a clear pass to me. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per the ip and Michael Scott Cuthbert's analysis. Meets ACADEMIC/SCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 21 December 2015 (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.