Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kunal Sood


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Kunal Sood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article relies on primary sources or non notable sources. Article seems to promote subject than an encyclopedic content. Itsalleasy (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Not sure why you say this? The article is covered with reliable sources. The man addressed to General Assembly of the UN and is a global health expert cited worldwide, all covered in references. --BiH (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 10.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 09:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the notability. The reliable sources only mention him in passing; the more detailed mentions are more in line with college yearbook bios, or are promotional in nature. It's not quite clear from the opening sentence what it is he does, or is notable for. The opening sentence appears to be asserting his notability rather than proving it: "a known global health expert" - known to whom? A Google search is not turning up anything meaningful for me. He appears to be an academic involved in some student publications, and has assisted in some conferences. I'm not seeing anything significant. The tone of the piece suggests this is a vanity article - and it was created by a single purpose account. I'm inclined to support a delete unless somebody turns up something more significant.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The man addressed to General Assembly of the UN (official UN document: ) and is a global expert on sustainable development cited worldwide (mentions in serveral books: ; mentioned in various papers: ). Recently, he curated TEDxUNPlaza event, hosted by the UN. All of this is covered in references. In my opinion, nominating the article for deletion was an act of bad intention (not to mention is was not done properly by the nominator, so I did not take it seriously). --BiH (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with SilkTork's analysis. As for the arguments given just above by BiH: addressing the UN only makes someone notable if this address was noted (i.e., written about) by independent reliable sources. The book references are nothing substantial (an acknowledgement, for example; the first book that pops up may or may not refer to this person). The Google Scholar results are very revealing: several publications pop up. None of the publications by Kunal Sood seem to have been cited even a single time. To pass WP:ACADEMIC#1, one generally needs a thousand citations or so. In short, no indication that this passes WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. As an aside, please refrain from personal attacks on the nom. That the nom had some technical problems is not too surprising as the process is not easy (advice: use Twinkle) and in any case, that has been remedied and is completely irrelevant to this discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. The low-quality sources with which the article is padded are not good enough for WP:GNG and I did not find better ones elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Multiple passing mentions do not somehow eventually total up to substantive coverage. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 17.  — cyberbot I  Notify Offline 22:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 17.  — cyberbot I  Notify Offline 22:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 18.  — cyberbot I  Notify Offline 04:07, 18 January 2014 (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.