Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somdutt Bhardwaj

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. Sam Walton (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somdutt Bhardwaj

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Junior faculty at a minor university. Only references are from current employer. No sign that this passes WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Randykitty (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has worked in Lovely professional university and senior faculty member of the present University 117.224.212.65 (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please have a look at WP:AFD. In order to be taken into consideration, your arguments need to be based in policy. Working at a lovely university and being a senior faculty member certainly is not enough to meet our notability (in the WP sense) guidelines. Also, Bhardwaj does not seem to be "senior faculty", as the only sources available list him as an assistant professor. --Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is founder of the university si he is senior and notable person of the university 117.219.46.171 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Founder, no less! That's not what the article on the university says. We'll need some good independent reliable sources to source that. --Randykitty (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Somdutt Bhardwaj may not be willing to have article but Wikipedia says let the other publicise you and write about others so, please keep it floating and if movie actress and actor find place on Wikipedia and a person who is contributing his mind, body and soul his appearance is made questionable by the Wikipedia, in India such kind of contribution is remarkable. 117.237.25.32 (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "notable" (in the WP sense) is not the same thing as worthy. Many events or people are unworthy, but notable, worthy and notable, unworthy and not notable, worthy but not notable. There's no direct relationship. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His work is notable for the welfare of the society.Drkyt (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is good enogh for publishing as it has notable issues, social welfare and his multi dimension personality makes it notable.164.100.1.213 (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep 164.100.1.213 (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There simply isn't enough verifiable coverage to warrant an article. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{oldafdfull|result=speedy keep|votepage=as appropriate|date=2015 September 17}}111.93.59.122 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)~~ Struck template that belongs on talk page of articles after an AfD has been closed. IP, if you want to !vote, please read WP:AFD to see how that is done. --Randykitty (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. The only thing in the article that looks like an independent reliable source is the Times of India story, but that has no nontrivial coverage of the subject, only a quote from him. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- NN junior lecturer. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2015 (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.