Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adya Prasad Pandey

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. postdlf (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adya Prasad Pandey

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

Does not meet WP:PROF, no indication this professor has had a significant impact on his field, low h index as well. Also a bit odd to see a full professor with Masters Degree. Another in a string of articles on academics from this university that are not meeting notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as per WP:PROF. There are no third-party sources that help establish notability, and one of the sources is a phone directory which shows him as coordinator of the Banaras Hindu University Press, which is cited heavily. This is possibly an issue,as the article is based primarily on these sources. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Salih (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As he is a Full time Professor and has Done Phd As you Have to Undersatnd It as Without Phd No one can be Professor In A Central University Which is Asia's Largest and Popular University if you have any confustion ask with university He has Done significantly work in his Field as he has done Major Research Project in Small Scall industry Devlopment which is considered as back bone of industrialisation in India accordingly to his work Government has allowed some special funds for Training and development of Small Scale indutries worker he is currently doing work on indeginious techique of Toy making which is rare in the area . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.85.123 (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: User below is the same user as above)

No Need To Delte this article

As no doubt he is an Eminent Professor in Economics and he has done significant work in Industrial Economics he is expert in the Field of Small Scale Industry as his work makes significanly impact on way of Thninking of Governemt toward this sector of Industry as this is considered as back bone of indutrylisation in India as his work and Reaserch Report which he has Completed makes Government to Allow Special Funds to These sectors workers as previosl thses sector is considered as sick industry as he is now working in the area of Ancient Indigenous techniques of Weaving of Silk Related Cloths which include Saree Drapes Pachmeena etc as this work is rare in the field Under Indian National Science Academy he is First who as an Economicst work on Ancient History of Sceicne Research he is also doing Major research on Toy industry which is considred as dead industry of this Environmnet Friendly Toys which is made up of Sahiya Wood Whcih is Very rare and its Growth.

links which shows his postion as professor in B.H.U http://internet.bhu.ac.in/socialscience/economics/index.html

also more information can be found in google.com . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devinwiki1 (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, simply being a professor of a school is not reason enough to be included in Wikipedia. Also, being involved and doing research for any given project does not inherit notability from that project, unless the the person contributed a significant amount of work to the project, enough for references to note this. I have searched for relevant third-party references to try to improve the article, but if they exist, they simply are beyond my ability to find. I apologize for any confusion about this article, as I suspect that because of a slight language barrier you feel that people are attacking your article for no reason, but I assure you that, for my part, this is not the case.

After attempting to find sources to establish notability, I was unable to find any, and as none have otherwise been provided, have placed relevant templates on the article. You then removed the templates, not as an act of maliciousness in any way, but perhaps because of a lack of experience of Wikipedia's policies and procedures. Though I do not [[believe that you intended it this way, your edits were disruptive and instead of helping your article, hurt it by causing the article to require semi-protection, making it more difficult to improve the article by adding an unnecessary step.

If you have any references that establish notability, please place them on the talk page so that they may be added into the article. Also, if you wish to leave a message, please do so on the article's talk page, placing it in four different talk pages is not necessary, as watchlists exist to make sure the relevant parties are made aware of the message. I would also kindly ask that you place any comments, references, etc. while logged on to your primary account, as if you do have multiple accounts, placing comments as an alternate account or an unregistered user does not help your case, but rather hurts your case. I will not comment on this article further, as I believe what needs to be said has been said in regards to the article, and any further comments would simply be unnecessary repetition. Thank you, and have a pleasant day. - SudoGhost (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scholarly output negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:10, 31 March 2011 (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.