Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prem Raj Pushpakaran

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Raj Pushpakaran

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biological researcher of no particular notability. Inclusion in Marquis Who's Who cannot be taken as an indication of notability, as the nomination and acceptance process appears to be not particularly rigorous.[1] The Bharat Jyoti Award, granted by the India International Friendship Society, is impossible to verify or assess, as the IIFS does not publish lists of its winners (see the IIFS article, and their website) -- for all we know, they're handing these things out like candy. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject seems reasonably well published. The acceptance process at Wikipedia must be less rigorous than the Marquis Who's Who. Anyone that has a better handle on that sort of thing should weigh in on this debate. Stormbay (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Reasonably well published" seems a bit subjective. The subject has been co-author on five papers, but lead author on only one. This is a fairly typical (i.e. run of the mill) doctoral and post-doc publishing career. And yes, given the information in the Forbes article about Marquis Who's Who, I'd say that Wikipedia's guidelines of notability are considerably more stringent. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough publications and citations to satisfy WP:PROF and no evidence of satisfying any other criteria for notability. Salih (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails to meet WP:PROF. Wiki is not an advertisement platform. --Bharathiya 03:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete I've been convinced that the published body of work does not convey sufficient importance to the subject. (see my comment above). Stormbay (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Persistent IP vandalism on this page attempting to subvert the AFD process leads me to conclude that the author of the article (editing as an IP) has no intention of meeting Wikipedia standards, but rather every intention of subverting those standards. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- 202.124.73.97 (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2012 (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.