Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archana Sharma (2nd nomination)

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Sharma

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PROF does not apply. Few papers with few citations as per GScholar. Coverage in popular Indian media minimal - often just a casual mention. Not famous in her field of research. Does not hold any distinguished position/chair. — Finemann (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After a long search in GS I find cites of 62, 22, 18, 14, 11, 10, 10.... with an h index of 7. Not enough for a person in a large research group to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of biographical sources on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

totally irrelevant reason, contrary to WP:Deletion policy. Scientists are needed for their work, not the the biography, so the absence of articles about their life specifically is irrelevant. (and we judge the work according to WP:PROF). Anyway, a search in google and yahoo only is never sufficient to justify a delete , except for the sort of people one would expect to find sources there. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Xxanthippe that the numbers don't show a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.