Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prodosh Aich

: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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

=[[Prodosh Aich]]=

:{{la|Prodosh Aich}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prodosh_Aich Stats])

:({{Find sources|Prodosh Aich}})

non-notable academic promoted because of a self-published book [http://www.lieswithlonglegs.com/]. It remains unclear what Prodosh Aich's academic positions actually were. The article does not seem to use any reliable sources for the claims to notability. Mostly there are interviews on Hindutvadi websites. The non-reliability of Aich's book has already been discussed in detail on the Max Müller page. See Talk:Max_M%C3%BCller#Muller.27s_educational_Qualifications. He appears to be the author of some sociology articles, and one 1962 book called Farbige unter Weissen, about Asian students in the West. I submit that he fails WP:PROF. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

~~Neutral~~ Weak keep Interesting article on a scholar of unconventional views in Germany. Sources are barely adequate but some appear to be independent. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC).

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Weak Keep Some of the sources (particularly the first one in the article) seem to directly analyze the author's work. We usually do WP:PROF C1 by citations (here unimpressive, with 32, 28, 20, 16, 11 and an h-index of 5 on GScholar), but having other people view your work as sufficiently important to make it the main subject of articles in reliable sources is another way of going about things, so there's a plausible claim to notability there. Holdings of his books in Worldcat are fairly thin. This is the most marginal case of WP:BARE I've seen in a while, so opinions may easily differ. Ray^Talk 13:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
weak Keep His major german works have holdings in more than 50 libraries each in Worldcat. For wa nonEnglish work of this nature, that's substantial. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Relisting comment: No consensus yet, let us discuss one more week

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Weak Delete As per nom.Much of the article has his own website and book as reference which is bad. TheStrike Σagle 10:07, 25 March 2013 (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.