Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chittaranjan Yajnik

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chittaranjan Yajnik

[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)

There do not appear to have any significant coverage to establish notability for this person. Fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to Scopus he meets NPROF C1 easily with 28317 citations, an h-index of 66, and maybe most importantly, multiple highly-cited papers in extremely good journals like The Lancet (citations: 6116 (2004a paper), 1398 (2006), 260 (2017), 244 (2018a), 233 (2018b), 140 (2004b), 57 (2020)), Nature (1870 (2015a), 1386 (2011), 654 (2015b), 84 (2015c)), NEJM (1380 (2019), 603 (2006)), and JAMA (1304 (2009)). Sources almost certainly exist for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep clearly relevant per NPROF but the article needs to work to demonstrate notability. --hroest 03:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easy Keep with this Google Scholar profile demonstrating PROF C1.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear pass of WP:NPROF. WP:GNG is not what matters in this case. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NPROF. --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:46, 12 March 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.