Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prof. (Dr.) Usha Tandon

:{{la|Prof. (Dr.) Usha Tandon}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prof._(Dr.)_Usha_Tandon Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Prof. (Dr.) Usha Tandon}})

The subject of this article, while clearly being well-published, does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC: she holds no named chair positions, has received no national awards, etc. Successfully submitting reports, being identified as a national expert, being invited to conduct research, and being editor in chief of a non-notable journal do not constitute notability; neither do things like membership in the P.A.A., which is open to anyone, nor does having published a number of papers, nor does having presented her research at a number of conferences. I do not disagree that her work is important; I disagree with the argument (thus far) that she is notable (by Wikipedia's standards) because of it. KDS4444 (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. I have edited the article, removing the most egregious promotional language and a lot of trivial fluff. What's left is badly-sourced, but even when taking everything on face value, I don't see any evidence of notability. I searched GScholar and Google (time consuming, as there are several people of the same name). I did not see any evidence on GS of Tandon being cited in any significant way. although there are a number of Ghits, most are again about other people and the few sources that I saw (e.g., [http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/du-law-faculty-finds-itself-in-a-tighter-spot/ this one], on the faculty being derecognised by the Bar Council of India) are just in-passing mentions. The reports are in part published on blog websites. The book on population law is published with a publisher that is so insignificant, they don't even have a real website (instead, there's just a page on blogspot...) Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and I just discovered that the main contributor may be a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. Ayub407^talk 13:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. I found basically the same GS results as RandyK...refs are web ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC).
• Delete. GS cites are too weak to support WP:Prof. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC).
• Delete. The article includes what looks like a claim of notability under WP:PROF#C8 (editor-in-chief of two journals) that appears stronger than the #C1 claims based on citations to the subject's papers. But the two journals in question, Journal of the Campus Law Centre and National Journal of Comparative Law, both fail the "major, well-established" requirements of that notability criterion. In particular, the only information I can find online about the JCLC ends up directing me to a dead web address that is part of a collection of "Home Pages of University of Delhi Community Members" rather than any respectable publisher, and the NJCL is only little better, with only 15 hits on Google, one of them being this article itself and most of them looking very spammy. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.