Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudarshan Kapoor

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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sudarshan Kapoor

Sudarshan Kapoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Notability unclear. Doesn't pass per h-index from Google Scholar. Doesn't hold a distinguished professorship as per WP:NACADEMIC#5. No clear indication of a pass of WP:NACADEMIC#1. No multiple secondary reliable sources for a pass of WP:GNG. nearlyevil665 06:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 06:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep it seems there is an argument due to him being editor of Peace & Change per WP:NPROF#8 even though he was only co-editor in chief, but its close enough for me. Taken with all the other work he did, I think he passes the bar. Obviously the "[under construction]" part of the article needs to be fixed. --hroest 17:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would it be fair to say that Peace & Change is not necessarily a "major, well-established academic journal in their subject area" as per WP:NPROF#8? I cannot seem to find it as the Scimago Journal & Country Rank website to determine its citation score. Could someone else take a look? This is important as #8 would not apply if this is not a major academic journal. All I found is this link which shows that the most cited article in the journal had 116 citations, which is not impressive at all. nearlyevil665 17:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment according to this entry in the "The Encyclopedia of Christianity, Volume 4" it is one of three notable journals in the field of peace research. This is not my field, so I may be mistaken but there are sources supporting that this is a notable journal in the field. I think the argument is weak based on #8 alone, but it is there and there is additional evidence to support NPROF notability. --hroest 19:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for the source. I'm not fully convinced by it, though. I am unable to find any reputable journal ranking trackers that would indicate any significance for the Peace & Change journal. I'm not sure being mentioned in "The Encyclopedia of Christianity" (is this supposed to be an authoritative publication itself to the point of being used as a basis for establishing journal notability?) qualifies as a pass of WP:NPROF. I'd love to hear what other users have to say, particularly those with experience in academia. nearlyevil665 19:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing the technical aspects of the deletion criteria, I am unaware how a possible "contrarian view" may be received, that: (A1) it may not be appropriate to judge Prof. Kapoor exclusively on his career's 'esteem ranking' in a hierarchy of elite academia. (A2) It is significant that his career is held in high esteem and admired and affirmed by his fellows in the trenches, as it were. Also, evidently, by the elite in the field (see below). (A3) I am suspicious of a merit/elite standard as determined exclusively by peer popularity, e.g., some people who are mediocre at their game in chief may be quite good in politicking a following, while others are the opposite. (A4) Very important: Stanford University's King Inst. obviously thinks Prof. Kapoor worthy at his game in chief. Is Wikipedia taking the position that here the Stanford folks don't know who's who or what's what? (B1) His book today is a sought-after item on Amazon. (B2) His book covers a subject well-chosen and, in my humble opinion, likely to grow in importance as the passing of time increases the quality of vantage point and perspective from which to judge past events. To it Prof. Kapoor brings insight and special skills. (C1) I do not know Prof. Kapoor personally, nor do I have special interests in his situation. (C2) I do have a strong interest in the article's content, which I think very significant. I conjecture that the readership of Wikipedia would be enriched by it. Elfelix (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Appears to be passing NPROF. Dhawangupta (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• JSTOR By searching it for Sudarshan Kapur, 54 results. Elfelix (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears subjective notable to me. See this and this. I'm sure there'd be good coverage in Hindi language as well. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 02:18, 18 May 2021 (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.