Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajagopal Kamath


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Rajagopal Kamath

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF. Nothing in Scholar, or anywhere else for that matter, that I can find. As for WP:AUTH, I am struggling to find existence of anything bar the odd passing reference. Of course this may be due to language issues, so bringing it here for discussion. PROD removed by author. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep.  and  are articles from The Hindu that mention him.   mentions him at the very end (search does not work on this pdf). When the article was created, it was claimed that Kamath was the author of 17 books and over 200 articles; it would be useful if the original editor listed them with details of their publication. It is plausible that the editor who wrote the article on Kamath will develop it so that it demonstrate notability.  I suspect that the reason the editor has not done this, was that he/she did not realise what was necessary.  If it is decided not to keep this article, please could it be 'userfied', so that the original editor can continue to develop this article to such a standard as to justify inclusion.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sources are nowhere near adequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete, basically per nom. Essentially zero citability in GScholar and WebOfScience, nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF. Moreover, appears to be a possible WP:FRINGE case, and the article reads as basically a WP:OR piece. Nsk92 (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Nsk92. Khu  kri  07:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This reads like a fan page or self-promotion page, and the sources cited do not appear to meet the standards needed for the academic claims made. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He writes in Malayalam language. Quite popular too. Several interesting quotes from the books reproduced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gameseeker (talk • contribs) 09:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTH. Also seems to be promotional material with a strong indication of WP:COI. This sentence "He put forward the importance of neutrinos in understanding the fundamental concepts physics or understanding the shortcomings of Albert Einstein’s idea that nothing can travel faster than light and the superluminal velocities of light itself." is misleading, sounds like they are trying to claim they invented particle physics. Yes clear WP:FRINGE and WP:OR concerns as well. Polyamorph (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2011 (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.