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 delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sudesh sivarasu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

COI article. Strongest of the weak notability assertions is "he has design a high flexion artificial knee using 3-D reconstruction technqiues and work gained acceptance and recognition worldwid" Dweller (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:PROF Salih (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:PROF, the article's peacock terms, poor writing and Geogre's law problems aside, it clearly fails WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An impressive career that does not meet guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Citation impact seems to be very low. Another law, could be called peacock's law: the extent to which peacock terms are used is inversely correlated with the extent to which notability criteria are met.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2009 (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.