Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parag A. Pathak

:{{la|Parag A. Pathak}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Parag A. Pathak}})

Content of the article and the scant references provide no indication of notability meeting WP:PROF. Agent 86 (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Did the nominator look at Google Scholar? Xxanthippe (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC).
• If you found something, maybe you'd like to improve the article. As it currently stands now, the article is full of "citation needed" references and still contains little to indicate any notability meeting the criteria of the policy.Agent 86 (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

::If you care click on the link above you will find, on the first page alone, 680 cites with an h index of 10. This is well towards passing WP:Prof#C1 in this area. It is the job of contributors to these pages to determine if there are enough reliable independent sources for the article to be kept. It is not the duty of editors to improve the BLP itself, although many do. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC).

:::There's no link for me to click on. If you are as passionate about this article as you seem to be, you'd do something to improve it. As it stands, I see a mess of an article with no indication of any verifiable sources or notability other than a string of "citation needed".Agent 86 (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

::::If you look about three inches above this line you will see a list of Find sources. Just click on them. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC).

:::::Clicked the link, none of the hits seemed impressive and did not strike me as meeting WP:PROF. I am also not impressed by the lack of effort by those supporting the article to make much effort to make it encyclopedic or to bring in into compliance with existing policy. I have no problem with people turning a sow's ear into a silk purse. Maybe then it wouldn't have to be deleted.Agent 86 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to be notable based upon claims made in article, but the majority are uncited and definitely need to be to keep the article. I don't have time right now to source them, but have placed fact tags to help others find the places where sourcing could be helpful to help keep the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2011 (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.