- 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. Star Mississippi 17:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Rajendra Pangeni
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rajendra Pangeni ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An autobiography. Meets neither general Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines, nor the specifics laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). None of the sources cited are both independent of the subject, and discussing him in the required depth. Source (1) is a standard brief university teaching staff bio. Source (2,4) is Written by the subject. Source (3) is a link to a page which makes no mention of him, and which wouldn't be independent if it did. The remaining sources (5-8) are papers authored by the subject. An online search finds nothing obvious to suggest that further sources could be found to meet our requirements. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Academics and educators,
Biology,
Medicine, and
Nepal.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 15:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have put the new source for source (1). More independent sources will be provided to make sure the page meets Wikipedia guidelines.
2600:1700:1DCA:8080:9509:CAEA:F9DA:DBAC (
talk) 00:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- The new source does nothing further towards meeting our notability requirements. We need in depth independent coverage of the individual, not the individual himself discussing a project he is working on.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 01:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I am a new user but I understand what editors such as AndyTheGrump means. I have edited the article massively on seeing that the page deserves being there looking at the research portfolio and community engagement of the subject but requires massive revisions. I have done quite a bit and needs more to be done. Fekudinesh ( talk) 06:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)I am new for Wikipedia for creating contents. I have also done a bit of editing on this subject if it helps. Dinpandey ( talk) 06:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)- No, it doesn't help. I would strongly advise new contributors to take the time to read Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Notability (academics) in particular, along with Wikipedia:Reliable sources before tinkering around with the article. None of the edits made have done anything to address the issues raised. We aren't interested in citations to papers Pangeni has contributed to. We aren't interested in short bios from employers, or from organisations he has worked with. We aren't interested in articles about organisations he has worked for. The only material that is relevant when establishing notability per Wikipedia standards is going to come from published reliable sources unconnected to Pangeni, and discussing him in depth. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 07:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I am going to create a bunch of new accounts and vote to keep the article. I am sure no one has ever thought of it before, so Wikipedia won't know what hit 'em.
Usedtobecool
☎️ 08:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- User:Fekudinesh and User:Dinpandey have been confirmed as sockpuppets of User:Rajendrapppangeni. None will be taking any further part in this discussion. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- The new source does nothing further towards meeting our notability requirements. We need in depth independent coverage of the individual, not the individual himself discussing a project he is working on.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 01:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have put the new source for source (1). More independent sources will be provided to make sure the page meets Wikipedia guidelines.
2600:1700:1DCA:8080:9509:CAEA:F9DA:DBAC (
talk) 00:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Citations on GS far too low to pass WP:Prof in a highly cited field. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC).
- Delete spam. Wikipedia is supposed to be the last place to report after you have achieved something notable, not the first place to tell the world what you plan to do. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't think the citations are enough in this area to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1, as X says above. Maybe there's in-depth coverage of him in Nepali for his thoughts of maybe returning someday but I don't see it in the coverage in the article, which includes one piece briefly mentioning him and one by him. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Way too few citations, and far too early in his career for a page. Ldm1954 ( talk) 02:27, 7 February 2024 (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.