Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chanchal Kumar Sharma

:{{la|Chanchal Kumar Sharma}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chanchal_Kumar_Sharma Stats])

:({{Find sources|Chanchal Kumar Sharma}})

Per the article's talk page, where the discussion ended up with the statement, {{talkquote|I request that the page be deleted. No doubt, the author has really made some significant contributions in the most respected journals in the discipline. Also he is affiliated to a prestigious scholarly body, i.e. CMF,ISS, New Delhi. He is Associate Professor at an Indian University located in Haryana. Furthermore, after reading notability criteria it seemed that fulfilling only the one of the many criteria given on that page is enough. However, now it seems working on this page is a waste of time because "significant coverage by third party sources" is something that very few can achieve, like Presidents, Prime Ministers, or other notable politicians, Nobel Prize winners or winners of similar notable awards, Olympic gold medalists or great sportspersons, great musicians, famous social workers etc."|by=Sweetmusician|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chanchal_Kumar_Sharma&diff=498451873&oldid=498434327|ts=22:17, 19 June 2012}} Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 09:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 09:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Contrary to what Sweetmusician seems to think, many articles on academics are kept because good sources can be found. Not so in this case. The article lists a number of External links, but all are just in-passing mentions or are an associate editor-profile for an academic journal. 100 citations in a high-citation density field like economics is also far from what we usually accept as evidence of meeting WP:PROF#1. No evidence either that any of the other criteria are met. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Can all this be considered collectively for retaining the page? I withdraw my notification for deletion, if all these help. Propounding a new theory/concept in a high impact factor journal itself can be a reason for inclusion. Google scholar (107 citations soem of them very prestegious, some citations are very detailed); Google News ( 4 references) Google search (many) Recognised Expert ( See ehttp://www.forumfed.org/en/events/event.php?id=103). Fellow of a scholarly body (CMF,ISS, New Delhi) Outstanding contribution recognised (See http://haryana.punjabkesari.in/haryana/news/26052012/page/8$3) Coverage in The Hindustan Times (Live) (no weblink). Newspaper articles also make solid reference. One author has even directed the attention of the government of his country to the findings/views of the author (http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/2009/06/27/71142.html http://www.brecorder.com/component/news/single/1128770/). If not then let the page go with immediate effect. Kindly see which action is more appropriate. I vote against unnecessary "pending status" for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetmusician (talk • contribs) 04:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. The citation record doesn't support a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and I'm not convinced of any other WP:PROF criterion. Most of the sources in the article are primary; there are a few reliable newspaper stories but they all mention him only trivially, so the evidence for WP:GNG is also lacking. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I have scrutinized the author's research work. They are very serious works and there is a breakthrough in the two most recent ones. However, it takes time for the international academic community to take note of new research. The author is a researcher with a promising future, but the story has just begun (because the most important contributions are in 2011-12). I guess the author is in the early stage of his career and will build a solid research contribution for biographical inclusion in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enlightenedb (talk • contribs) 10:17, 27 June 2012 (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.