Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prof.R K 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-22 13:48Z 

Prof.R K Sharma

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not a notable academic. I cannot verify that his textbook exists or is widely available outside of his class. Looks like a vanity page. Cybergoth 20:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. Heavy POV, no citations, cannot find any mention of him anywhere and the text itself admits that the book he allegedly wrote is not yet notable: "aims to become" --Kimon 21:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO -- K.Z       Talk  •   Vandal   •  Contrib  22:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd 00:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable professor in Nepal. Needs sources, but we have maintenance tags for that. John Vandenberg 04:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless sources are provided since there are absolutely none. In response to Jayvdb, having no sources is a valid reason to delete.  Maintenance tags for needing more sources are for pages that have sources establishing notability but don't have enough sources to back up statements needing citations. --The Way 08:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I should have explained myself more in that regards. I have just worked on Articles for deletion/Kathmandu University High School (second nomination), adding sources.  For this region of the world, they are pretty hard to find, and the Afd process is too short to be sure they will be found.  I would prefer that in cases like this, tags are used first, and if after due course no sources are provided, then it comes to Afd.  Listing it here as a first port of call smacks of having no WP:FAITH.  To be fair tho, Cybergoth did welcome the newcomer and notify them about the Afd. John Vandenberg 08:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand your position, but policy generally holds that anything that is unsourced can and should be deleted. Information, quite frankly, shouldn't be added unless sources are provided when it is added.  Nominating something for deletion because it violates policy is not a violation of WP:Faith.  --The Way 08:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FAITH is a principle that has made Wikipedia what it is. If a newcomer writes an article that violates policy, it is beneficial to the project to be gentle.  Let me put it this way; if the article had of been tagged before being listed here, I would have voted delete because the article and editor had been given a chance.  I have added three sources; they are not real good ones, but it is a start to put this subject in perspective.  It looks like this is the person the original contributor is referring to, however I havent had much luck verifying that person is involved with Kathmandu University Medical School, simply because their website is down again (or the link into that region of Nepal is down). John Vandenberg 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 13:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- The Indian medical journals assert notability. Baka man  18:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if verified/sourced. -- 62.25.109.196 10:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The KUMS website is visible again, and it confirms he is the sole member of their dept of forensic medicine. John Vandenberg 10:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The verification listed above is sufficient. I wasn't sure that would be sufficient sources for Nepal, but it seems there are. DGG 04:09, 20 February 2007 (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.