Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R.K. Kotnala

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. Nomination was withdrawn without delete !vote. Best, (non-admin closure) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R.K. Kotnala (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)

Highly promo page for an academic full of issues. While he might pass notability WP:NPROF#C1, even after some cleaning of unverified statements the page contains far too much unsourced material. As general quality control I am recommending draftifying; somehow it has escaped the standard 3 month window for this. We need to ensure that articles in main space are not just notable, they are encyclopedic.

Issues:

1. No sources for #Early life and education
2. No sources for #Career as a scientist
3. Highly promo tone about the so-called hydroelectric cell which "generates green electricity by splitting water", for which the only sources quoted are news articles.
4. Claim of establishment of advanced measurement techniques for magnetic materials quotes a paper on biological extraction of metals
5. From what I can see no secondary sources, only a couple of his papers and news articles in the cleaned up sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Delhi, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a notable academic, but stubify this down to facts that can be independently cited and phrased neutrally. Nothing more. There's been some good work done on the article to demonstrate a lot of the claims aren't what they appear, so I think a serious and unapologetic cull is in order. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Membership in NASI should be enough for WP:PROF#C3 and his citation record on Google Scholar also makes a good case for #C1. I have heavily trimmed some unsourced, dubious, and indiscriminate material from the article. It needed it, but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The original proposal was draftification (not deletion, so WP:DINC was never relevant, and notability was never the issue). The edits by David Eppstein (talk) is the stubify that Bobby Cohn (talk) suggested. I am OK with leaving it like this. It still has two books sourced to a library shelf, plus an award of "President" of a nebulous scientific organization as quality control issues. For certain this is far better than the original NPP version. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:49, 10 February 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.