Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Acharya

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. Tone 21:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Acharya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, all sources are self published, no significant coverage by independent sources. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 04:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 04:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete' personal Websites are not the valid reference links. And promoting his books by giving reference links. Author Sanju (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Author Sanju (talk • contribs) 01:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Weak keep. The subject has a decent number of citations for his field, and he has botanic species named after him (I failed to confirm this). To me it seems he fulfills WP:NACADEMIC. Besides that, he does seem to be regarded as a notable person in Indian websites [1] [2]; someone that knows hindi could probably help here. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Walwal20, Sorry but the links you provided are of a blog, So I don't know how a blog is reliable? QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    QueerEcofeminist I'd say they are reliable if found in larger numbers. If more sources like that can be found, it would suffice to establish WP:GNG. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 16:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • A note for other editors: there exist another Deepak Acharya that is notable in the cardiology, so take care to distinguish between them. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Walwal20, those blogs are not independent. And self published sources are never reliable. Thanks QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 02:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    QueerEcofeminist Quite bold statements. See WP:NEXIST WP:NRV. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 03:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Non-notable herbal entrepreneur with a veneer of academic respectability, but not a deep enough one. I found two reliably-published book reviews [3] [4] but they're only of a single edited volume he co-edited. I'd want to see multiple reviews of multiple authored (not edited) books before seeing notability that way. There are web-page reviews of other books but they look highly unreliable. And his citation record starts off high enough but tails off too quickly to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At least two of the books were self-published (see the "what we do" page from the company). XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not provide independent reliable sources , fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As same as earlier nomination and as realised in discussion, most of their books are self published. So definitely not notable enough. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your nomination counts as stating your opinion; you don't need to do so again. XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think Bearian and David Eppstein's evaluation is pretty much on the mark. Such sources as exist aren't reliable, and so we don't have documentation that he passes the notability bar. (Blogs are seldom reliable and should not be used to substantiate claims about living people.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • XOR'easter, thanks. I will keep this mind 🤠 QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Quite a bit of referencing here is to self-piblished and non-reliable sources, which is already a significant red flag. When those are flitlered out, there's little covereage left. Nsk92 (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2020 (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.