Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr.S.F.Patil

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. Randykitty (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.S.F.Patil[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The page reads like a CV copied and pasted onto Wikipedia. Autobiography/COI. Previously CSD'd under G11. Cahk (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete executive directors of some functions of a university are not inherently notable. No actual sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are so many new articles being sent to AfD within a few days of being created, in this case the same day? Yes, the quality of the article is poor, its format is inappropriate, and it doesn't have references. But is the subject of the article notable? He has an Award for outstanding teaching & research in Radiochemistry; he is a Nominated Eminent Scientist on the Governing Body, Maharashtra Association for the Cultivation of Science, and has apparently "Initiated new lines of research: Hot Atom Chemistry, Radiation Chemistry of Solutions/Solids, Activation Analysis, Color Centers in Halide Solids, Luminescence in Alkali Halide Crystals, Diffusion in Aqueous Solutions/Solids using Labeled Isotopes and Conducting Polymers". Don't those claims suggest that he may indeed be notable, and it is the article which is lacking? What about WP:ATD? RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he would be notable as an academic, but it seems the article was written by the same person.I did a search on google scholar, and it seems there are quite a lot of papers written by SF Patil, not sure if its the same person in all of them. but only one of of those papers was cited by more than 100 people(231 to be exact), all others have less than 65 citations. Daiyusha (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation record on GS is tiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
delete Apparent autobiography with no references. My own search didn't find the significant independent coverage needed to meet the GNG or the research citations I'd expect to meet WP:NACADEMIC. Sandals1 (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Comment. Delete because of issues detailed above. I have nothing new to add to the lack of notability. As one of the people who does copyedit work, and am fairly new to it on here, I always wonder why such badly formed articles are allowed to begin with. Even if it was notable, I would want (though perhaps it is incorrect to want this on Wikipedia) for it to be draftified until the original author could get under some control. Doesn't have to be perfect of course but this isn't even an article, it's a list of things this person supposedly did. Someone else would need to come by and change it to prose and deal with all the WP:MOS issues. That doesn't seem quite fair when the original writer didn't even make an attempt. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 21:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The lack of notability issues have been well addressed above. Wikipedia is not a place to host your résumé. - tucoxn\^talk 16:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2018 (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.