Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.P. Singh (naturalist)


 * 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) — Theopolisme   ( talk )  02:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

D.P. Singh (naturalist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability not observed. Article written without references except some official pages of university. Vice-chancellorship does not make a person notable Jussychoulex (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Vice-chancellorship does make a person notable per WP:PROF criterion 6. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are about 600 universities in India. it means 600 pages should be booked in wikipedia for the pages about their VCs. remember, appointment of VC in Indian universities is purely 100% political, not by the biodata/resume of the person.Jussychoulex (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of room for 600 articles about vice-chancellors of Indian universities, and it's not our job to speculate about the reasons for anyone's appointment to a job that confirms notabilty. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PROF C6. But I'm going to stub the article, since it is currently a stylistic, mostly unsourced mess. Ray  Talk 12:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF C6 -- many people are notable for dumb reasons (terrible songs, horrendous acts, nepotism) so even if Jussychoulex's assertion were to be proven correct, it is not enough to overrule that those people are notable. There are definitely more than 600 notable Indian academics and academic administrators lacking articles; that we delete those that are not notable does not mean we should not encourage the creation of articles for those that are.  -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.