Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. N. Sharma


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure)  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛  𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜  15:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

D. N. Sharma

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Doesn't qualify for Wikipedia's criteria for notable academics. The Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics of which he is an editor-in-chief has a very low impact factor and the main organisation he's a fellow of appoints about 25 to 40 of them per year. The article was created by a single-purpose account which probably has an extreme conflict of interest. Graham87 (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine,  and India. Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I added a note about this discussion at Template talk:Infobox journal, where the article creator had commented. Graham87 (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: per source assessment table. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Totally irrelevant for someone whose notability rests on WP:PROF not WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning Keep. Agree with the nominator that Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics is insufficiently prestigious. However uncomfortable about dismissing the National Academy of Medical Sciences fellowship; it feels biased to accept the UK or US equivalent body but not the Indian one. For comparison, the British body elected 59 candidates last year, based on a much smaller population.. Assuming this is the GS profile it looks quite healthy (top papers 1034,239,187,156,137) and might well be enough to satisfy WP:PROF, though the field is quite citation heavy. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. The editorship in combination with the National Academy membership and a very healthy citation record (we usually take an h-index of 20 plus at least 3 articles with >100 citations as indicating notability) make this a clear meet of PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Membership in the recognized national medical academy of a large country should be good for WP:PROF and that indicators of other forms of academic notability are also present. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep -- editor of significant journal, plus major and selective National Academy membership is a keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2023 (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.