Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prof Rakesh Sinha (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. Arguments for keep are weak being not rooted in Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines, consensus is to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Rakesh Sinha[edit]

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

Highly promotional article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC as the article fails to make clear what makes him notable. Triggered two sockpuppet investigation requests (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mahant2013). The Banner talk 00:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete: in preparation for this AfD I've attempted to reformat and partially clean up this article, so that its poor quality won't turn the discussion (including my own) away from more relevant BLP/NOR/GNG issues.
All this being said, from having gone through the article, it appears that this guys only claim to fame is being on TV sometimes. He holds no distinguishing positions or status at his university, and pretty much fails the rest of WP:ACADEMIC. And aside from his professorship he really has nothing else BLP/GNG-wise to credit this article with, aside from being an occasional political personality. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not agree with this, as a Director of India Policy Foundation, New Delhi based think tank on policy issues, he has authored hundreds of research papers, interventions and monologues. His single largest contribution to RSS led Hindutva movement is that Prof Sinha has provided intellectual backbone to RSS ideology, which was earlier limited to emotional issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdikardapoli (talk • contribs) 03:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC) — Murdikardapoli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Perhaps it is a good idea when you and friends start reading Wikipedia Reliable sources that prescribes that sources must be independent (not in anyway related to the subject), reliable (no social media or blogs) and publicly published. The Banner talk 11:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Primary sources (such as articles written by the subject) don't show notability of the subject. Any academic writes a lot of different texts, that is also not a claim to notability. --bonadea contributions talk 08:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per The Banner and Bonadea. Yes, he's been quoted in the media and written some things in various venues, but just listing publications off is not an indication of his notability. I wish the sockpuppetry alone was a valid rationale for deletion. GAB^Hello! 20:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, While some of us might not agree with his political views or RSS ideologies, Wikipedia is a place where we come to seek information about public personalities and Prof. Sinha with his constant presence on TV debates and news media, definitely is one. He has been representing RSS on various platforms for quite some time and his views were also highlighted in the Pradhanmantri TV series. Disclosure: COI (I am related to him)--Richas 23 (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC) — Richas 23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
STRONG Keep - Academic Freedom §- Recommendation of deletion of page of a professor who has influenced the methods of established thinking does not need more work to establish his scholarly credentials after already publishing few hundred articles. If talking about own research work is PROMOTION, then more than 80 percent of individual wiki profiles are promotion.

This article is based on references suchas Papers published in newspapers, magazines and published as books and monographs, link provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul Singh Ind (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC) — Rahul Singh Ind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete at best for now as the current article clearly needs extra better work and I have no considerable confidence this will be amply improved thus delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is a hot mess (of sockpuppetry or political partisanship, I know not) and Tpdwkouaa's valiant attempt at cleanup has all been lost by now. So we could go with WP:TNT as a deletion rationale. But also, there is no reliable source here about the subject. All sources are the subject's own writings, blogs and other such unreliable sources, or reliably published articles about other subjects that don't provide any in-depth coverage of the subject. As such, we have no evidence that he passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - §- There is sufficient link to other wiki pages and citations. It does not seem to be any orphan article. It seems recommendations come from those articles which are promoting there business online and violating wiki promotion policy. This article follows wiki policy at its interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul Singh Ind (talk • contribs) — Rahul Singh Ind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I have struck out your "keep": you are only allowed one keep or delete opinion per AfD. Also, please sign your messages. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That an article is an "orphan" does not mean that it has too few links to other Wikipedia articles. It means that other articles do not link to this one. But please note that that is not part of the reason why the article is listed for deletion. If the article should be kept, the cleanup issues (such as the many superfluous links to other Wikipedia articles, and the lack of links from other articles) can be addressed. Secondly, please do not make any assumptions about the motives of other editors here. The only relevant question in this discussion is whether the person meets the applicable notability criteria, WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Unfortunately that still does not seem to be the case. There are many, many (too many!) external links in the article - if it is kept, a large number of those links will have to be removed - but very few of them are secondary sources, which is what is needed to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 08:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. As author named Prof Rakesh Sinha is notable figure in India and the majority of the sources have quoted references from independent sources, we cannot term this wiki article as self promoting. The person named Rakesh Sinha is widely acknowledged figure in Indian intellectuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdikardapoli (talk • contribs) 15:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You are only allowed to vote once. The Banner talk 15:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG, and the rampamt socking/meatsocking in support only makes me more convinced the article should be deleted. Jeppiz (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2016 (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.