Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damodar Sharma (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 keep‎. Satisfies NPROF c6; as noted in the discussion, NPROF does not operate within the context of the GNG. Goldsztajn (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damodar Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

On a WP:BEFORE search i didnt found any reliable source, fails WP:GNG as well as WP:SIGCOV. All references used in this biography are dead urls and being a vice chancellor doesn't inherit notability without coverage in the Secondary sources. Also he don’t have any prestigious award or high research career to gain notability. Fails WP:NACADEMIC TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Could the nominator perhaps justify their claim that being vice chancellor (which here means head of an entire university) does not make the subject notable, and that secondary sources are required, when both of those claims would appear to be contradicted by WP:PROF#C6? C6 gives notability to heads of universities and does not require secondary sourcing for that notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your comment, @David. I appreciate the reference to WP:PROF#C6, which states that notability can be conferred to “The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.” While being a vice chancellor (head of a university) could theoretically qualify under this criterion, the guideline still operates within the broader context of Wikipedia’s notability policies, particularly WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability. WP:NPROF itself is not a standalone exemption from WP:GNG but rather a specific guideline that supplements it, and C6 is typically interpreted as applying when the role or institution is of such prominence that it inherently generates verifiable coverage.

  In this case, my WP:BEFORE search did not uncover any reliable, independent secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject’s tenure as vice chancellor or their broader academic career. The references in the article are dead URLs, and I couldn’t find alternative sources to substantiate notability. While the position of vice chancellor is significant, not every individual in such a role automatically meets the threshold for notability without evidence of broader impact or recognition (e.g., through awards, high-profile research, or media coverage), as outlined in WP:NACADEMIC and WP:SIGCOV. Without such evidence, I believe the article still fails to meet Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion.

  I’d be happy to reconsider if reliable secondary sources can be provided to demonstrate the subject’s notability under C6 or any other criterion. Absent that, my nomination stands on the grounds of insufficient coverage and failure to meet WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. TheSlumPanda (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact you are completely incorrect. WP:PROF does not operate in the broader context of WP:GNG. It is a separate notability standard with its own separate requirements that are not subsumed by GNG. (Nor do they strengthen GNG rather than being subsumed by them, as for instance WP:NORG does.) It explicitly states, as I said before, that independent secondary sourcing is not a requirement for verifying that its criteria are met. (The criteria must still be reliably sourced, but the sources can be primary and non-independent.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @David Eppstein, Recently i also created an article on a vice chancellor of 2 universities (one of them is central university in india) but that got rejected at Afc submission stating that the subject don’t have sig cov. (See). TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So this is all an exercise in WP:POINT because your drafts were badly sourced and/or some overworked AfC reviewers weren't familiar with WP:PROF? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No thats not because of WP:POINT, i nominated this article because this subject doesn’t have any presence in secondary sources on WP:BEFORE.TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheSlumPanda, that was definitely a mistake on the part of the reviewer. I'll let them know. -- asilvering (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per David Eppstein. It seems that, despite the title, the vice-chancellor of a university in much of the world, including India, is actually the head administrator of the university, with the chancellor just a politically-appointed figurehead. The subject was the first vice-chancellor of Rajasthan Technical University [1] and later vice-chancellor of Suresh Gyan Vihar University [2], which means he meets NPROF#6. Toadspike [Talk] 17:07, 30 March 2025 (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.