Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Sridhar

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 - The article needs a lot of work doing but notability is there. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K. Sridhar[edit]

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

Not a notable figure. Known for something "Twice Written" not sure what is it!! Sourced with facebook page. No secondary source. No contribution whatsoever. Educationtemple (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. He wrote something twice??? That was all I could think of! Wgolf (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My presumption would be that a full professor at the Tata Institute would be notable, but of course that's not a policy-based argument. And it's a little hard to search because there are other people named "K. Sridhar" with highly-cited publications. But I'm seeing Google scholar citation counts of 276 ("Quarkonium production in hadronic collisions"), 187 ("New LEP bounds on B-violating scalar couplings"), 167 ("Fragmentation contribution to quarkonium production"), 156 ("New LEP constraints on some supersymmetric Yukawa interactions"), 114 ("Getting to the top with extra dimensions"), 108 ("Next-to-leading order QCD corrections"), etc., which should be good enough for WP:PROF#C1 even in a high-citation field. In addition, the major-newspaper reviews of his novel (thanks for adding these, EricEnfermero; they weren't in the article as nominated) could also give him notability under WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. It seems that there was some confusion over what Twice Written was. However - from the original version of this entry (2011) to the version sent to AFD to the present version - Twice Written has always been clearly described as a work of literary fiction or a novel. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep The citations arefully sufficient. I don't know why this was re-listed. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 28 April 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.