![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2013 February 26. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. While the vote tally between delete/keep is roughly equal, the arguments to keep are not convincing. Some argue that he passes WP:PROF because he has published many papers, however it has been shown that many of his papers were plagiarisms, which therefore artificially inflate his academic importance. Others argue that he is notable as a plagiarist, but the reliable secondary sources provided to support this claim are tenuous at best. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 00:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG only 2,770 results hits on google. Fails WP:PROF with but 69 hits on GScholar. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2013 February 26. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. While the vote tally between delete/keep is roughly equal, the arguments to keep are not convincing. Some argue that he passes WP:PROF because he has published many papers, however it has been shown that many of his papers were plagiarisms, which therefore artificially inflate his academic importance. Others argue that he is notable as a plagiarist, but the reliable secondary sources provided to support this claim are tenuous at best. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 00:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG only 2,770 results hits on google. Fails WP:PROF with but 69 hits on GScholar. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply