Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santosh Kumar Chaturvedi


 * 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, rather weakly, but a consensus does exist. No prejudice towards recreation (including any other administrator undeleting this article and draftifying) if the state of play changes. Daniel (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Santosh Kumar Chaturvedi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

None of the published work by the subject does not seems to have significant impact on the field of study. The subject has won some non notable awards. But he does not have recieved independent coverage from multiple sources to establish notability hence fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. While he's a bit above average in a few criteria in his field*, there's nothing demonstrating an exceptional career or scholarly impact.

I compiled the average total citations, total pubs, h-index, highest citation, and highest first-author citation for Chaturvedi and ~100 of his coauthors (with more than 30 papers--people publish in this field a lot). Total cites: avg: 2669, Chaturvedi: 2366. Total pubs: avg: 94, C: 264. h-index: avg: 18, C: 24. Highest cite: avg: 351, C: 113. Highest first-author cite: avg: 95, C: 87.


 * JoelleJay (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Passing WP:GNG isn't a requirement, as WP:NPROF may be the relavent criteria here. As per JoelleJay's analysis, I'm not convinced is suitably notable though. Might be some reviews of the recent books in due course, but perhaps too soon for that to be grounds for notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment:JoelleJay, Inorder to pass WP:NPROF, the subject must satisfy atleast any of the 8 criterias mentioned there. I dont see he has passed any of that. His contribution doesnot seem to have made an impact in the field of study. Also he is not a winner of any notable awards. Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 17:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Kichu, yep, I should have clarified that the criteria I was assessing were for NPROF C1, which seemed to be the NPROF criterion he was most likely to pass (but I don't think he does). JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. The original article submitted has been stripped of several things we should be considering (copied below from the edit history of Santosh Kumar Chaturvedi, with wikilinks added): Fellowships at Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Royal College of Psychiatrists, Indian Psychiatric Society and honorary membership of World Psychiatric Association all might count towards WP:PROF #3, and the Editor-in-chief position, albeit of a red-linked journal, might count towards #8.
 * Fellow Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, UK
 * Fellow, Royal College of Psychiatrists, UK
 * Member, International Association for the Study of Pain,
 * Life Member, Indian Association of Palliative Care.
 * Life Fellow of Indian Psychiatric Society
 * Honorary Member, World Psychiatric Association, WPA ,
 * Member, Editorial Board, Psycho Oncology [Wiley]
 * Director, Board of Director, International Psycho Oncology Society [2006-2012]
 * Editor in Chief, Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation & Mental Health
 * Member, WHO’s Working Group on the Classification of Somatic Symptom and Dissociative Disorders 2010-2012. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este charge-paritytime 07:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Drafity or delete No secondary source found,might be case of wp:toosoon.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - may also see Google Scholar profile with many published research - each of them cited heavily by other academics. Researchgate has 4000+ citations   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:568F:8FE2:C871:721A:56BF:5D8F (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2021 (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.