Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheo Sagar Ojha


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Sheo Sagar Ojha

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was previously deleted last year. It doesn't satisfy WP:NACADEMIC and WP:RS Watsonboy12 15:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Created by what is essentially a promotion-only account. Vanamonde (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:GNG.  FITINDIA   16:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While consensus is clear that the subject doesn't meet WP:PROF, I'm relisting to evaluate if the sources provided in the last comment support meeting GNG.
 * Keep Clicking through the sources verifies the information in the article, and shows that there has been significant discussion about this person in all the sources except the ones about weather forcasting. Though he does appear to be a regular weather forcaster. The sources are reliable sources as far as I can tell according to WP:RS. He has published thousands of papers and written ten Geography books that are used as references in university libraries. You can see on Google Books that he's contributed to many books. His concept of flood harvesting is new to the Indian government. Satisfies WP:NACADEMIC for "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" and "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions" and "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research" and "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." He passes WP:AUTHOR for "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" and "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Lonehexagon (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment "thousands of papers in scholarly journals" ...really? seems like a stretch. Theredproject (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google scholar says his "geography of India" has been cited only five times, and finds nothing better. To be notable through academic publications (WP:PROF), prolific publication is not enough: the publications must have an impact, usually measured through citations by other authors. So he doesn't appear to pass this criterion (unless there is a large body of related research missed by GS) and I don't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if you don't count his writing, he passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." He's discussed significantly in The Times of India and India's biggest newspaper Dainik Jagran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonehexagon (talk • contribs)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - publishing many papers and having a few quotes in articles is not the same as being notable.--Rpclod (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete promotional and subject is not covered substantially in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Times of India and Dainik Jagran (India's biggest newspaper) aren't reliable, independent sources? Lonehexagon (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2018 (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.