Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis C. Ajonuma

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

:({{Find sources|Louis C. Ajonuma}})

there is an assertion of notability, but there are few sources, and it's impossible to ascertain genuine notability with this cv masquerading as a bi  Ohc ^¡digame! 07:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

---

• Delete No independent coverage. All the references are his publications. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

---

• Weak Keep The article seems to be written with good intentions.. But the references makes it hard to pass notability criteria.. ARK (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

: if it fails notability criteria it should be deleted. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Week delete the relevant criterion is WP:PROF, and the references being their individuals own publications is not ann argumeny against notability ,since the criterion is being an authority in their subject, and this is proven by citations to their work, which is how scientists measure such things. Unfortunately, h=12, and the field is one where very much higher citation counts are usual for notable individuals. there is only one highly cited paper (70 cites), and the individual is not a principal author. Science is international, and therefore the standard for notability as an authority under WP:PROF is an international standard, and we do not judge by whether the person might be a relatively important authority in their particular country (this is different from some other fields of endeavor, or some of the other possible factors in WP:PROF or the GNG. I dont't thing this meets the expected level. DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

: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.