Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Singh Nalwa (Scientist)


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hari Singh Nalwa (Scientist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This BLP, which is written like a resume, makes an inadequate case for WP:GNG. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, speedy close. Review of GScholar search results alone makes a strong case for notability under applicable academic/scientific SNGs. While extensive recent additions to the article may involve NPOV/NFC issues, AFD is not for cleanup. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:PROF says that for an academic to meet GNG, their work needs to have had a significant impact on the field. A look at HSN's work on google scholar suggests that they have had such. This is also helpful; it says that he founded a journal, which is pretty significant for an academic. As hullabulloo says, the article is pretty terrible, but that has nothing to do with the notability of the topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Vanity page created by the subject, User talk:Hari Singh Nalwa (Scientist) (he redirects his main user page to the article). Recommend investigating associated editors for sock-puppetry.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Coverage is mostly routine, tangential or trivial, and does not add up to enough to base an article on by a long shot, and my own searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Fails WP:PROF by a wide mile, and all of our other notability guidelines as well. Agree that this is a vanity article written by the subject for self-promotional purposes, and also suspect sock-puppetry by the author/subject of the article. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: In addition to the Google Scholar results, he has been the founder and/or editor-in-chief of some journals, including the Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology and others described here. I don't know a lot about this area, so I'm not sure if they are significant enough to meet WP:PROF #8. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Google scholar alone makes it notable enough for having a page. American Scientific Publishers has published his books. Noteswork (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: He's actually the president/CEO of American Scientific Publishers. EricEnfermero (Talk) 11:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ASP is also notable, wonder why it still got no article. Noteswork (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep with a caveat - I removed a lot of cruft, and what is left is OK, but we need much better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2015 (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.