Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DR.K.K. SHARMA

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:23Z

DR.K.K. SHARMA

prod removed, likely hoax Travelbird 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and notablity established by end of AfD. janejellyroll 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it's not a hoax, the article's quality is unsalvageably poor and the article is of no value. - Richardcavell 03:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete as failing the policy on attribution, and since there are no reliable sources to draw off of, the subject of the article also fails the primary notability criterion. Additionally, a search for sources fails to yield any. Kyra_~(talk) 03:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a page containing only unverifiable, hagiographic material. A likely hoax, since the good Doctor only gets 2 non-Wikipedia Google hits, and they are primary sources. --N Shar 04:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, no references = no notability Alf photoman 14:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak keep~~ under the hope that sources will be inserted. The work when sourced will probably be N. This is another example of pages written carelessly by those who do not understand WP standards. The proper course is not to delete them, but to work at helping the authors improving them. This lack of knowledge tends to be substantial with subjects and authors from India, among other countries, and calls for extra effort, not removal.DGG 02:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article contends that the author (born 1977 - but supposedly 26 years of age) wrote 120 (!) books on historical subjects. If the date of birth is correct, and assuming he didn't start until he was 17, that works out at an average of 12 books a year ! I'm afraid that without proper sources I'm not inclined to believe that this is genuine Travelbird 03:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading more carefully than I did. My failure to read might be a result of the same automatically negative attitude that I was deploring--so particular thanks for making me aware of it.

Delete as probable hoax. DGG 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 06:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this edit by the initial contributor is sufficient for me to consider this article vandalism or unabashed self-promotion. John Vandenberg 07:32, 26 February 2007 (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.