Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Sushil Kumar

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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Sushil Kumar

Though Sushil Kumar may be one of the current directors of Indian Council of Historical Research, no understandable sources can be found that testify to his importance. The Hindu provides a mention one of his comments, printed 9 years ago. The inline citations don't seem to mention him personally. There are no complete references to any of his books. There are not enough sources provided here from which a proper article can be written. EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I spent quite a while looking around to see if I could find any solid sources to prove he is notable. I found brief mention of his book, and a few small scholarly articles, but nothing proving notability. An administrator at a barely notable organization, Indian Council of Historical Research, does not seem to meet point three, five, or six of Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and nothing else I can find shows notability. Based on the primary contributors name and list of contributions, this seems to be a case of self-promotion. -- PEPSI2786^talk 04:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete.

I have been monitoring all the versions of this Article right from its entry level . My views are :

The Article has following strengths and may please be not deleted.

1. It is the piece on a soldier who has made it to being the Chief of the World Renowned Indian Council of Historical Research ( any other instance?)

2. It is an article that need to be there in the portals of Wiki to demonstrate to the readers as to how when some one's name is misused and it continues to stick even if the subject cries hoarse that he did not make such and such statement.

3. It is a demonstrative article , depicting the Whistle Blower who for some corn in his head or bee in his bonnet , shows how to continue to report against any one who indulges in to defalcations of Public Funds, despite personal deprivations. Dr Kumar was chosen for consideration of an award for his fight against corruption (Let me recall the name of the Internatioanl agency and I will put it here) the article needs to be retained being didactic.

4. It is a piece on the Village Lad who serves in the Services (What services ? its not clear) and still has the time to study from Unversities of India like JNU, Madras and GNDU (where is Guru Nanak Dev University?)

5. If Wikipedia is for all , if Wiki caters to all the readers and wants the literate denizens to know about the kinds of Kumar then this Article needs to be retained.

Weaknesses

1. The piece got slowly filled up , bit by bit. The contributor either does not have full knowledge on Kumar or is chary to come out with all details in one go.

2. The contribtor does not know how to provide references.

3. The article is a painting that needs the brush strokes of the experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topeditorials (talk • contribs) 06:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC) — Topeditorials (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing on this article is... em...misleading.. to say the least. Fails our notability policies. If someone *can* find some reliable sources, please drop me a line and I'll take another look and reconsider my position at this afd. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who then was a gentleman? (talk · contribs) and I have put a lot of effort into trying to fix this article, since Directorichr (talk · contribs) hasn't got the hang of references and citation templates yet. But the basic problem goes much deeper than formatting: there just aren't the references to support notability, still less some of the more biased and emotional statements. The only reliable, relevant references we have say that Dr Kumar is one of two Directors of the ICHR, who was censured by the Council for "intemperate" statements and was responsible for "huge expenditure on regional centres". No doubt there's another side to the story but if reputable Indian news sources don't cover it, we can't. - Pointillist (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I an find 3 books in US libraries: [1], though in only a few--which is not itself indicative of non-notability. A check at BL does not add to them. Otherwise I too cannot find enough. DGG (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the article's subject can be given, which in this case looks like is not the case, thus failing WP:NOTE at this point in time. Cirt (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 16:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found several people by the name of Sushil Kumar who are clearly notable, but none of them is the subject.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete His book, "Surrender in Japan exists and is held by a few libraries, but given the lack of secondary sources we cannot say much else about him. For example, I cannot even tell if he the same Sushil Kumar has authored all these books. So cannot argue for keep under WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Abecedare (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2009 (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.