Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Chet Chaudhary

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Chet Chaudhary

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

My concerns about notability are more in the form of a question than a statement, I don't see mainstream secondary coverage of this ag scientist, however, I'm less clear on the standards required to demonstrate notability based on scientific coverage via scholarly references (WP:ACADEMIC #1), particularly in different fields, see for example, [1]. Both of the refs I've included are primary but probably good enough to WP:V the existence of the guy, but I would like additional opinions on the notability question, etc. Thanks. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak weak Delete for lack of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I read the article and was prepared to be impressed: a book on plant breeding from OUP that ran to four editions! Maybe it's widely used as a text and he can pass that way. But I don't know how to verify the part about the editions because worldcat only shows one edition that is only held in five libraries. The other book, on rice varieties, really does have multiple editions (or at least multiple translations) and is held in 70+ libraries according to worldcat. That's not enough to convince me of a pass of any of the WP:PROF criteria, and I also don't see a basis for a WP:GNG pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added some of his affiliations and his award from the Prime Minister of Cambodia. I am not sure that he fits our standard academic criteria as he seems more of a practioner who does reasearch, invention, innovation and diffusion. He does not seem to have had an academic affiliation (university) for a while. My feeling is his work under FAO and leadership role in the International Network for the Genetic Evaluation of Rice (INGER) (now linked with IRRI) might be judged sufficient. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The evidence seems to show that the work on rice varieties is that of an authority in the subject, and it thus meetes WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 19 January 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.