Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh Singh (academic)

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 Keep. Editors need not be reminded that Vice Chancellor of major academic institution(s) are clearly notable per WP:PROF. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Singh (academic)[edit]

Non-notable bio discussing a non-notable controversy. Most of the article discusses a non-notable controversy. Reliance on India based news services, most of which are little more than blogs posing as newspapers produces articles and bios with a lot of dead links over time like this one -- Swapnil Joshi -- so don't be immediately wowed by all the references to India based news sites which move links and delete articles all the time. It's more troublesome since posting controversial content could result in all of it pointing to dead links over time which is a BLP concern. BLPDegreaser (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~- Non-notable bio discussing a non-notable controversy. BLPDegreaser (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In AfDs, it's implied that the nominator supports deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm inclined to feel like this article is more trouble than it's worth. The subject is primarily notable for his controversies, so any article we have must focus on those. Yet the sources don't really give much neutral context for those controversies. I'M certainly left scratching my head wondering what it's all about. So I'm inclined to swing to delete, unless someone can do something to clean the mess up. Thus us a potentially damaging BLP, after all. Sławomir
Biały 17:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unless being the recipient of the Padma Shri award is not enough for notability. If this is merely a content concern, then deleting the entire article is not the answer. I'm also concerned by the motives of a brand new user's first major action being the creation of this AFD. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a volunteer at the BLP Noticeboard. No hidden agenda here. This is an article with a non-notable controversy about a non-notable subject. Even the editor thinks the article should be deleted. The article was reported for repeated insertion of poorly sourced content. If the articles only purpose is to discuss a controversy, then the controversy must be notable, which is is not. This is not the place for tabloid gossip from blogs in India. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Even the editor thinks the article should be deleted." I assume this is directed at me. I'm not sure I agree with the characterization as "the editor". I didn't write the article, although I did at one point "edit" the article to reduce the amount of ephemeral gossip. But surely that does not qualify for the definite article "the". Others have done much more editing there than I have. However, I also do recognize that it is problematic, for some of the same reasons you have already articulated. Sławomir
Biały 21:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: 97.126.235.119 is suspected of being the nominator BLPDegreaser, editing while logged out, and has been blocked as a WP:SOCK.—Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Even the editor thinks the article should be deleted." Statistics show at least 8 "distinct authors" of that article. The article has existed for over 1.5 years. The only point of this discussion is whether the subject of the article is notable. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Padma Shri and Vice Chancellor of a major university are each usually considered sufficient reason to keep. So to me the only possible justification for a deletion would be that the BLP violations are so intractable that we can't possibly clean them up or keep them cleaned up. Is that really the case? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree per Uncle Milty and David Eppstein. Clean up? Yes. Delete? No. As with Uncle Milty, it is also concerning to me that one of the first edits by a new editor is coming here to start this AfD. Czoal (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- quite obviously notable, per WP:PROF, as vice-chancellor of a university. Deleting because of dead links is not an acceptable course of action; nom seems to be unfamiliar with the relevant sections of WP:V. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes the "Controversies" section needs to be cleaned up but that doesn't mean we should delete the article of this person that is clearly notable. Filpro (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This should be snow-closed. Obviously, the subject is notable. Most importantly, the nominator and the IP were blocked for socking. And the IP made very clear what their motives are with regard to getting BLPs deleted or at least removing as much content from them as possible. Czoal (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's the vice-chancellor of a major university for crying out loud! Even without all the other stuff. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure if this matters with regard to how quickly this AfD will be disposed of, but the nominator retired immediately after their block for socking expired. They are now using only their IP account to edit. Czoal (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2015 (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.