Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandar Ljubić

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.  Sandstein  19:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Ljubić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, unsourced BLP. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Well, the guy certainly is notable, 2015200520022012, 2015. The article is unsourced indeed, and might easily be a copyvio of something (it was created in a single swath), so WP:TNT might be applicable. No such user (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A GS h-index of 11 fails WP:Prof#C1 in highly cited field of biomed. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment for now and I vote later. It appears the same new account created this page that is under discussion and this page [1] which promotes (with promotional wording) a procedure this doctor developed. It is also a copy vio and has been tagged and blanked as such. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the new account's contributions history [2]. Appears to be SPA. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I planned to comment sooner, there's nothing convincing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delte there are no sources that indicate the subject's notability. In conjunction with the deleted page to which I linked, this article appears to be one facet of a promotional campaign, using Wikipedia as a platform. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertorial. The hallmark of such articles is the ext link in the body, which we have plenty of here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2016 (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.