Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Srikanta Sastri


 * 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar  15:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

S. Srikanta Sastri

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article on borderline notable academic. It is unclear why the article contains such a lengthy "Academician" section when it has no direct bearing on the notability of the subject. Almost all references are to the works of the subject himself. Google Scholar shows no work getting 10+ citation i.e. a likely failure of WP:PROF. If kept someone needs to volunteer to stubify this article to 5% of its present length Solomon7968 13:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Solomon7968 13:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Solomon7968 13:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note - I have deleted a major part of the Academician section as it was completely off-topic. Bharatiya29 (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article fails the notability criteria for WP:PROF. —  San ska ri  Hangout 14:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I should note that Google Scholar is not going to be great for academics who (1) write in non-English languages and (2) died before the preeminence of the Internet, as their work is likely not digitized and cannot be easily counted. However, this article is too promotional and packed with primary sources to make heads or tails of the subject's actual impact/importance and would need to be rewritten from scratch. czar  15:40, 3 October 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.