Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pradip Kumar Singh

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rksinghrules (talk | contribs) at 05:47, 23 July 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Pradip Kumar Singh

Pradip Kumar Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we need individualistic approach for single low importance profile or event/s for each and every staff of Indian University who does not even hold major academic work position like Chancellor.

Thousands, millions of low profile professors including associate, assistant all around the globe have had minor single page publications as co-contributor. Do we need individual article for each one of them unless they hold any key positions or had major research work which impacted in their scholarly discipline?

This article should be merged with other existing articles, if available sharing same common subject/publication/research work of interest, or else should be deleted. Drsharan (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Drsharan (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "University Professor" is not low level staff. Low level staff are instructors, lecturers, assistant professors, and so on. -- and we almost never make articles on them. In this case, there seem to be substantial publications. DGG ( talk ) 14:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not each and every professor (as the individual claims to be) can get their article on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (there are thousands of Professor in India alone), unless they had an outstanding work achievement or research work or awards. The individual did not even hold any major incumbent in Indian University system. Moreover minor publications and research paper (in this case study of previous author/researcher had be revised by Pradip Kumar Singh and editors as co-contributor) does not make any sense for having separate article on wikipedia. Individual has a COI and it is a true example of self-promotional activity on the stage of Wikipedia. This article is supported by primary source (official website of individual). Couldn't find any reliable source that supports this article independently even on a small scale / search-engines hits. Majorly, this article is a pile of revised book work and research paper. Drsharan (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep PK Singh and every anthropologist (even though they are minor professor/ressearcher) are notable and they do not need to prove anything by giving references in order to show their notability on Wikipedia. They all are notable in themselves. Keep this article. 110.225.205.113 (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
    • This is simply incorrect. See WP:PROF. This IP contribution, like the other ones (all of which seem to mirror each other, and all of which smack of the work of Rksinghrules), provide no arguments toward PROF notability, and will not be counted by a closing administrator.
  • Strongly Keep Keep this article. Very good article even though references are not present we'll create website for L.P. Vidyarthi, P.K. Singh and other anthropologist which will serve Wikipedia as references. Thanks.Rksinghrules (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Strongly Keep Very much notable than any OTHER PROFESSORS alive today around the GLOBE. 223.176.19.168 (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Keep "University Professor" is not low level staff. DGG is right. Prefer DGG's Comment. Drsharan, being professor gives you the automated right to have article in Wiki even if Professor's work is not recognized worldwide. I SUPPORT DGG. 223.176.21.44 (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Keep DO NOT PUT MULTIPLE ISSUE NOTIFICATION TAGS ON Pradip Kumar Singh, L. P. Vidyarthi and Vijoy S Sahay's PAGE. I HAVE REMOVED THE ABOVE NOTICE/NOTIFICATION AND URGE OTHER EDITORS NOT TO TOUCH THESE PAGES AT ANY COST. THANK YOU.Rksinghrules (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You only get to voice your opinion once:I I have struck through your second keep. And you should bear in mind that Wikipedia operates by consensus. I have replaced the tags on the unreferenced article you mention. TheLongTone (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 05:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfect article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.66.24.183 (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Delete Yes, Singh has published a few books and some papers, as DGG notes. However, as WP:ACADEMIC says, it is not enough to publish, all academics publish. What is needed is evidence that these publications have been noted, which we usually assess by looking at how often an academic's publications have been cited. Usually, this is very difficult to assess for someone with a common name (like "Singh"). In this case, too, there seem to be multiple "PK Singh" (one of them a microbiologist), but all of them have been cited so little, that even if we just throw all on one heap and count everything, it just is not enough, not even in a low-citation density field like anthropology. If one clicks the Google Scholar link above (under "find sources"), the highest-cited article has 11 hits (and that is one by the microbiologist). The Web of Science (which has a lower coverage in the humanities and social sciences) finds 9 articles, cited a total of 13 times for an h-index of 1 (here, I searched for "PK Singh"). If opne searches for "PK Singh" in GS, one finds some very highly-cited papers, but all by other persons (I went through several pages, down to articles cited about 30 times, none of them by the PK Singh under discussion here). In short, I see no evidence of this person having made a measurable impact on his field, as required by WP:ACADEMIC#1, nor do I see evidence of him passing any of the other criteria. --Randykitty (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please only !vote once. Also, you'd be well adviced to base your arguments in policy and not on WP:ILIKEIT, otherwise they are bound to be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Dr. Singh is a university professor who, from looking at the article, has authored four anthropological books particular to India, in addition to addition to nine academic papers. Although the article needs much work, especially in the area of inline citations, my recommendation is to retain it. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 07:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Publishing is what academics do. If those publications get "noted", they become "notable", but nothing like that seems to have happened here. 9 papers is, frankly, a ridiculously low number. --Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WorldCat knows of only 1 of his books (sparsely held, see above). The others may not have been "published" in the standard sense, but may rather be manuscripts or locally distributed. Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or any other notability criterion. The mere fact of publishing does not give notability by itself (not does being a professor); notability is caused by other people taking note of those publications in some verifiable way (such as scholarly citations, published book reviews, or the like). In the absence of anything like that for this case, there is no justification for keeping the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pradip_Kumar_Singh&oldid=618082137"