Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susmita Pande


 * 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Susmita Pande

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This rambling and poorly-referenced resumé of an article does not make it clear that she satisfies the guidelines for notability of academics, Notability (academics). Is her present position one which satisfies "highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution?" Per the one ref, a link to her college, the department she heads as Professor only includes 3 other faculty, with titles Reader and Lecturer. per another criterion,has her work had the needed impact? Not every professor has the notability needed to justify a Wikipedia article. Edison (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  19:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  19:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I've done a bit of editing to get the article into better shape, and I don't think it should be deleted until others with more knowledge on the subject have had a chance to have a look at it - Lawsonstu (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment There are still no refs but 2 university websites with faculty listings. There i no indication that she satisfies WP:PROF. It is just a resume of an average college teacher. Edison (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see any indication of notability. Unless someone finds evidence to the contrary, I'm going with a "delete". --Randykitty (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tiny cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, since it's more of a CV than an article (WP:NOTLINKEDIN). —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The Google scholar citations are not enough (either indicating lack of impact or working in a field not covered well by Google scholar, I don't know which but it doesn't matter because either way there's no evidence) and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2013 (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.