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 11:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Clicking through the sources verifies the information in the article, and shows that there has been significant discussion about this person in all the sources except the ones about weather forcasting. Though he does appear to be a regular weather forcaster. The sources are reliable sources as far as I can tell according to
WP:RS. He has published thousands of papers and written ten Geography books that are used as references in university libraries. You can see on Google Books that he's contributed to many books.
[1] His concept of flood harvesting is new to the Indian government. Satisfies
WP:NACADEMIC for "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" and "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions" and "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research" and "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." He passes
WP:AUTHOR for "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" and "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work."
Lonehexagon (
talk) 07:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment "thousands of papers in scholarly journals" ...really? seems like a stretch.
Theredproject (
talk) 23:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Google scholar says his "geography of India" has been cited only five times, and finds nothing better. To be notable through academic publications (
WP:PROF#C1), prolific publication is not enough: the publications must have an impact, usually measured through citations by other authors. So he doesn't appear to pass this criterion (unless there is a large body of related research missed by GS) and I don't see anything else. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Even if you don't count his writing, he passes
WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." He's discussed significantly in
The Times of India[2] and India's biggest newspaper
Dainik Jagran[3][4] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lonehexagon (
talk •
contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While consensus is clear that the subject doesn't meet WP:PROF, I'm relisting to evaluate if the sources provided in the last comment support meeting GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
SpacemanSpiff 05:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - publishing many papers and having a few quotes in articles is not the same as being notable.--
Rpclod (
talk) 17:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete promotional and subject is not covered substantially in reliable independent sources.
FloridaArmy (
talk) 21:52, 7 April 2018 (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.