Chanchal Kumar Sharma

Chanchal Kumar Sharma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: "Chanchal Kumar Sharma"news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Per the article's talk page, where the discussion ended up with the statement,

I request that the page be deleted. No doubt, the author has really made some significant contributions in the most respected journals in the discipline. Also he is affiliated to a prestigious scholarly body, i.e. CMF,ISS, New Delhi. He is Associate Professor at an Indian University located in Haryana. Furthermore, after reading notability criteria it seemed that fulfilling only the one of the many criteria given on that page is enough. However, now it seems working on this page is a waste of time because "significant coverage by third party sources" is something that very few can achieve, like Presidents, Prime Ministers, or other notable politicians, Nobel Prize winners or winners of similar notable awards, Olympic gold medalists or great sportspersons, great musicians, famous social workers etc."
— User:Sweetmusician 22:17, 19 June 2012
DoriTalkContribs 09:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DoriTalkContribs 09:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Contrary to what Sweetmusician seems to think, many articles on academics are kept because good sources can be found. Not so in this case. The article lists a number of External links, but all are just in-passing mentions or are an associate editor-profile for an academic journal. 100 citations in a high-citation density field like economics is also far from what we usually accept as evidence of meeting WP:PROF#1. No evidence either that any of the other criteria are met. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Can all this be considered collectively for retaining the page? I withdraw my notification for deletion, if all these help. Propounding a new theory/concept in a high impact factor journal itself can be a reason for inclusion. Google scholar (107 citations soem of them very prestegious, some citations are very detailed); Google News ( 4 references) Google search (many) Recognised Expert ( See e Fellow of a scholarly body (CMF,ISS, New Delhi) Outstanding contribution recognised (See$3) Coverage in The Hindustan Times (Live) (no weblink). Newspaper articles also make solid reference. One author has even directed the attention of the government of his country to the findings/views of the author ( If not then let the page go with immediate effect. Kindly see which action is more appropriate. I vote against unnecessary "pending status" for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetmusician (talkcontribs) 04:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. The citation record doesn't support a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and I'm not convinced of any other WP:PROF criterion. Most of the sources in the article are primary; there are a few reliable newspaper stories but they all mention him only trivially, so the evidence for WP:GNG is also lacking. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Articles for deletion/Chanchal Kumar Sharma, that was deleted or is being discussed for deletion, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Author(s): David Eppstein Search for "Articles for deletion/Chanchal Kumar Sharma" on Google
View Wikipedia's deletion log of "Articles for deletion/Chanchal Kumar Sharma"

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.