Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Reena Wadia


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Reena Wadia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Vanity and promotional article. Full of puffery, run-of-the-mill stuff. Do not pass WP:BASIC,WP:ANYBIO, WP:RS RationalPuff (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree that it's promo, and should be deleted. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 18:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep While the article needs clean up, multiple independent and reliable sources in the article and elsewhere (e.g. Telegraph, HuffPost) quote Wadia as an expert, so WP:BASIC notability appears to be established. Beccaynr (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Telegraph and HuffPost articles aren't even about her; they are about gum health and ask her questions about gums. They aren't focusing on the subject's contribution to her profession, or an award she's won, or any type of analysis. This is basically a CV. --Kbabej (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Puff-piece at the best of times. Please delete. Not notable Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just puff. She seems to have got a grand total of 2 citations to her published work. For the field she works in 2000 would be closer to the norm. If the BLP is kept the title Dr should be removed as it is not used by Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Delete. It's actually impressive how few citations she has and how low her h-index is for how many papers she's published (the bulk seem to be either uncited monographs or from a series in British Dental Journal called "Periodontal diagnosis in the context of the BSP implementation plan for the [year] classification system of periodontal diseases and conditions: [case report]". Xxanthippe is correct -- per Scopus, the average citation number for her coauthors with more than 10 papers to their name is 2711 (median: 1212, Wadia: 88). Her coauthors manage this with way fewer papers, too: avg: 79, median: 66, Wadia: 112. Her h-index is over 5 times lower than the average (avg: 23, median: 17, Wadia: 4)! JoelleJay (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of being notable.   scope_creep Talk  13:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No GNG claim. Kolma8 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as others have also said. If kept though, article needs renaming too. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with above. There is no sign of her meeting any notability criteria. Dunarc (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (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.