Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soumitra Kumar Mallick


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Soumitra Kumar Mallick

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. The subject has few Google Scholar citations, no hits on Scopus or Web of Knowledge, and basically no coverage in independent reliable sources. The subject's own autobiography makes various dubious claims (including a purported proof of the P versus NP problem using e-commerce published in a predatory Science Publishing Group journal and membership in "The Econometric Society" which calls him the Earl of York) that are unverified in independent sources and can't be taken at face value. — MarkH21talk 19:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 19:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 19:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 19:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 19:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 19:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I was trying to learn the AfD process with the goal of nominating this article myself. As I see it, it clearly does not meet the criteria for notability. In light of the recent edits and general tone of the sources, I hope Dr. Mallick is well. Knuthove (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of passing any WP:PROF criterion, and the possibility of a recent turn to crankery only makes the need for reliable sourcing that is independent of the subject more pressing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Far from WP:NPROF C1; I also cross-checked with the publications listed in the article in case there were variations of his name.  No sign of other NPROF criteria or of GNG notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass WP:NPROF. The Earl of York stuff is ridiclous. --Kbabej (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails GNG and no reliable sources found on doing a WP:BEFORE Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per everything written above.Anton.bersh (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as others have already said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The citiation count is not enough to make him pass for NPROF. Setreis (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Notable reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom  Devoke  water  12:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I also see a physics publication: Econophysics Haag’s Theorem and Stock Market Nanotechnology system, Soumitra K.Mallick, European Journal of Physics, Archived, 2015. Are we talking about the same person in all the publications or is the name a common one and hence merged within google scholar? Vikram Vincent 12:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can only find that article on Dr. Mallick's own researchgate page. He appears to claim here to have published it in the European Journal of Physics, but that seems both false and unlikely to me. At a glance, the paper looks like meaningless word salad. Knuthove (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have access to Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to check whether https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0143-0807 is listed? It claims an "impact factor" of 0.756. If it is listed then the above paper is a pass else fail. Vikram Vincent 06:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment A search for Econophysics Haag’s Theorem and Stock Market Nanotechnology system on https://iopscience.iop.org/nsearch?terms=Econophysics+Haag+Theorem+and+Stock+Market+Nanotechnology+system yielded zero results. A random check of an outlier that failed.  Vikram Vincent 06:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The European Journal of Physics is a real journal, but (a) one paper being published is far from passing WP:PROF, and (b) the claim of being published there looks untrue. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:48, 22 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.