Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geedhu Daniel

:{{la|Geedhu Daniel}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geedhu_Daniel Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Geedhu Daniel}})

Unremarkable junior researcher... does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC).

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Entire article is just non-notable education and membership information. The closest thing towards notability is journal publications, and that utterly fails with only four journal publications. Nothing close to notable for a BLP. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as I also concur this is questionable for any better signs of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. The only possible claim of notability is the "Francis Crick research award" which I could find no trace of; there is the Crick Lecture but no Daniel Guudhu won that one. So, this looks like another CV page, and potentially a lying one. Tigraan (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.