Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santosh Mehrotra

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. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Mehrotra[edit]

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

Repeatedly recreated WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Also see deletion record for Santosh K. Mehrotra. Article is all primary sources, might not meet notability guidelines. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 12:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt without consideration of whether the subject is notable, per WP:TNT. Unsourced autobiography, repeatedly re-created, promotional language. It would need a ground-up rewrite by a neutral party to be sure of getting rid of the promotional content and so far the only significant contributor to the article has been the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable Indian economist. Needs a rewrite and sourcing but should be fairly easy. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)) Have trimmed it right down and looking to add bits with sourcing. Will notify the author. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable economist who has served in important positions in India and internationally. See Google Books cite here. The problem is that the subject wrote it himself. Which explains why there are no other contributors -- until a week ago it was a User page. (Second time I've seen that recently -- new user tries to create an article by creating another user). Anyway, the self-written stuff is now gone and there are several reviews of the book cited. There should be no problem in finding 3rd-party material for an article. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then please find it. EEng (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he clearly passes WP:NACADEMICS #C1, #C6, #C7. Currently we have 14 footnotes to 3rd party sources. Is it too soon to propose a speedy keep? – Margin1522 (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria you mention are:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

Please point to the sources satisfying these criteria. EEng (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. The six cited book reviews and hundreds of citations for Development with a human face

6. Director General of the National Institute of Labour Economics Research and Development

7. Contributions at UNDP and UNICEF

If you like, you can put Director General under 7. But thanks to Msrasnw, these are all in the article now. My own approach to these discussions is that the onus is on the nominator and delete !voters to demonstrate not only that that 3rd party sources are lacking (which they aren't, now), but that they are unlikely to be found. WP:BEFORE – Margin1522 (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the notes to WP:ACADEMIC:

1. "To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books"

6. The National Institute of Labour Economics Research and Development is a government agency, not an academic institution.

7. The UNDP/UNICEF bio simply lists some books he's written. That's far from evidence that he's "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" or "has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert..."

EEng (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Are you saying that the reviews and citations weren't in peer-reviewed scholarly publications? For example, here is the editorial board of the International Journal of Educational Development. Granted, I haven't checked each one. I don't see much reason to doubt it.

6. It has a research function. But that's why I said that if you like you can put Director General under 7.

7. I am going by the description "has made substantial impact outside academia". Don't we have a category for an economist who has been influential in shaping development policy at the United Nations? If we don't we should. Policies to fight poverty in the developing world have a substantial impact millions of people. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well, are they? You tell me. But a single well-cited work isn't enough, and six reviews is nothing.

6. A government agency that "has a research function" is not "a major academic institution or major academic society". For example, I doubt the head of the US Census Bureau would automatically be notable. Anyway, UNDP and UNICEF says he's "an independent expert currently serving the Government of India as senior advisor", not that he holds "a highest-level elected or appointed academic post". As for this counting under 7., we'd still need sources confirming his "substantial impact" in that role.

7. Yes, policies to fight poverty, have a substantial impact, as a whole. What we need to know is whether his policies have made a substantial impact. And we need sources that tell us that.

EEng (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, they are. We have articles on Development and Change, The Economic Journal, and the Journal of International Development. They are reputable, peer-reviewed journals. As for only one book, here at AfD we don't have to write the article or find the sources for every publication. All we have to do is decide whether it's likely that sources exist such that a well-sourced article could be written. So far, to me, the answer seems to be yes.

7. About his impact, we do have the quote below: "policy analysts who have from time to time had a marked impact upon global social policy discourses. Perhaps foremost among these has been Santosh Mehrotra." Also I would expect this to be in each of the reviews. I seems a bit hasty to delete the article before reading the reviews. This may take some time, since they all require subscriptions. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be getting near what's needed. However, the sources do need to exist in reality, not just in likelihood. (They don't need to actually be in the article however, though I've often thought that's a stupid provision.) EEng (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party reliable sources. The book is listed as having been edited by Mehrotra and one other LC record, although the table of contents doesn't list authors [1] for the chapters so it isn't possible to know what part is attributed to him. In any case, all of the reviews here are for the same book, and one book is not enough for notability, especially if responsibility for the text is shared. Also, I was unable to find a record of the reviews in Economic Journal nor Journal of Educational Development. At that point I gave up. LaMona (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You can see the table of contents at Amazon. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Looked there. Still not clear why they are listed as "editors" in some catalogs. Again, ToC doesn't include authors, so presumably both were equal authors of all, but that fact doesn't confer notability on Mehrota, just authorship. LaMona (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I should have said that at Amazon you have to click "Look inside". The TOC of the actual book shows chapter authors. For the Economic Journal and Journal of Educational Development, I've added the doi codes of the reviews, so you can check those.– Margin1522 (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Clueless self-embarrassment, via recreation of prior-deleted autobio, is in and of itself an almost surefire sign of non-notability.

Plutarch relates, that before this, upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."
— Encyclopaedia Britannica (1797)

All primary sources. EEng (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An additional source which seems to me to support the claim to notability is: Deacon, Bob. 1997 Global social policy: International organizations and the future of welfare. Sage (cited 544 according to GS indicating a notable source) includes the quote:

UNICEF, in particular its Division of Policy and Planning in New York, has continued to provide an institutional home to a number of significant social policy analysts who have from time to time had a marked impact upon global social policy discourses. Perhaps foremost among these has been Santosh Mehrotra. With Richard Jolly he wrote, as we reported in the section earlier on the UNDP, the influential Development with a Human Face" (Mehrotra and Jolly, 1997) that drew lessons..... (Msrasnw (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2014 (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.