187:. This suggests to me that the person adding them not only is clueless about the mechanics (as well of course as rights and wrongs) of adding external links but also may not even have looked at what's (incompetently) linked to, instead simply pasting this stuff in from lists of ghits, all in a desperate and undiscriminating effort to demonstrate more and more significance for the subject of the article.
155:. It's conceivable that he meets the sixth, reception of "a notable award or honor" (which of course leaves the meaning of "notable" open to dispute). Certainly the article claims that he has won a variety of awards, but there's no straightforwardly presented evidence that he has won any that look more as if they might be "notable", while those that look less as if they are "notable" (such as
31:
182:
Since then, the article has deteriorated considerably. More particularly, one or two editors have let nothing -- automated messages from bots, personal messages from humans such as me, lurid CSS coloring of my personal messages -- dissuade them from adding shovelfuls of links. The greatest number are
486:
per the well-argued nom. AfD is not cleanup, but when an article is this bad, the creator is apparently unwilling or unable to take advice on improving it, there's no real prospect of another editor fixing it in the near future, and the subject is marginally notable at best, I think it's reasonable
190:
Since the "contributors" to this article seem uninterested in any advice that they're given, I have no reason to expect that the article will improve; and, as I've said, the subject of the article seems on the "nn" side (though a respectable academic who I hope and expect would be horrified by the
298:
thanks due to Hoary & Toddst1 for trying to fix this article, despite their efforts, it's unacceptably poor. It seems like the path to improvement is through deletion. Given the veracity problem raised by
Teleomatic I'm unable to take the claims made in the article at face value, and the
162:
I hope that I am not in breach of "CIVIL" if I say that, its subject aside, this article strikes me as a godawful mess. I fully realize that godawful messiness is not a reason for deletion, and that messy articles on worthwhile subjects should be improved, not deleted. The
211:
464:
144:
321:
281:
stated, none of this coaching was paid any attention to or even acknowledged. (One has been blocked) I have no reason to expect that the article will improve.
487:
to make an exception. Deletion should, of course, be without prejudice to an experienced editor writing a more coherent article which establishes notability.
215:
159:) tend to have recent edit histories that show considerable input from the users and/or IPs that have so vigorously contributed to this article on Pandey.
40:
179:
Pandey as the person answering a reporter's inquiries. As I understood it, he's a respectable but minor academic who once ran a research institution.
413:-- including the that part of the references that I'd spent twenty minutes rewriting (sniff!) -- and within a few minutes also made such edits as
317:
341::Telomatic, followed by Pete.Hurd, doubts the veracity of the page, and in particular whether he has been the founder or director of NCAOR. It
117:
112:
529:
121:
156:
152:
445:
is, as the user page suggests, simply another account creation for Dr. Pandey to promote his own article, that's wrong as well.
104:
17:
316:
Several of the pages that were also created by the same persons look like they need cleanup aor deletion. See, for instance
175:
that I venture to say is understandable. However, in doing this I found that most of the links I left in did no more than
342:
167:
will show that on 25 January I made a concerted effort on just one part of the article: its references. These were
511:
65:
46:
510:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
367:
Good catch - it seems I was a little hasty in drawing conclusions. I still feel notability is an issue however.
235:
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
493:
476:
454:
425:
401:
376:
358:
333:
308:
290:
265:
238:
222:
200:
86:
108:
82:
151:
An academic who verifiably exists but who does not appear to meet even one of the criteria set out by
450:
442:
421:
comes as a bit of a surprise, though of course he/she may just have been using it as a "sandbox". --
418:
372:
261:
346:
100:
92:
441:. The edit history suggests that it was created by Dr. Pandey himself (see the user names), and if
304:
232:
286:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
248:
Some of the claims also seem fictitious, including that he is the founder or director of the
397:
389:
329:
277:
to clean up up the article and to try to coach the actual contributors to this article. As
78:
472:
446:
368:
354:
257:
196:
231:
per nom. However, I may reconsider if the article is cleaned up during the AfD period. --
299:
article's sourcing is just too nutbar to expect the general WP readership to deal with.
300:
523:
434:
282:
138:
463:) by somebody whose name suggests he was Dr Pandey -- but a different Dr Pandey;
489:
438:
393:
325:
388:
per nom. Also, a duplicate article was created with the inexplicable title of
468:
422:
350:
278:
274:
219:
192:
171:
before I set to work; I pruned out the obviously superfluous and came up with
249:
504:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
25:
212:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
253:
437:
issues attached to this page, not to mention the issue of
460:
414:
410:
172:
168:
164:
134:
130:
126:
459:
Er, not quite. Yes, the article was first created (as
417:. Mysterious. Incidentally, the text of that editor's
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
514:). No further edits should be made to this page.
252:, as no mention of him is made on their website
77:, and allow for possible future re-creation. --
322:NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal
8:
157:Hari Om Asharam Prerit Vikram Sarabhai Award
411:wiped out the vast majority of the article
349:"founder-Director of NCAOR" in early 2005.
169:a grotesque and incomprehensible mishmash
343:seems he was Director until January 2006
210:: This debate has been included in the
318:Exceptional Scientific Achievment Medal
273:: I was the other editor, working with
45:For an explanation of the process, see
409:One of the main contributors has just
7:
216:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India
24:
433:. There seems to be some serious
153:Knowledge:Notability (academics)
29:
41:deletion review on 2008 July 31
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
494:21:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
477:07:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
455:07:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
426:06:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
402:06:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
377:00:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
359:01:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
334:22:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
309:21:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
291:16:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
266:16:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
239:14:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
223:10:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
201:10:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
87:02:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
183:in the form exemplified by
546:
461:this incomprehensible stub
191:promotional activity). --
246:as non-notable academic.
47:Knowledge:Deletion review
530:Pages at deletion review
507:Please do not modify it.
61:Please do not modify it.
320:, which even cites
225:
165:article's history
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
537:
509:
345:, and The Hindu
206:
186:
142:
124:
63:
33:
32:
26:
545:
544:
540:
539:
538:
536:
535:
534:
520:
519:
518:
512:deletion review
505:
443:User:Ekbal_anuj
347:was calling him
184:
115:
99:
96:
73:The result was
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
543:
541:
533:
532:
522:
521:
517:
516:
499:
497:
496:
481:
480:
479:
428:
404:
382:
381:
380:
379:
362:
361:
336:
311:
293:
268:
241:
233:Metropolitan90
226:
149:
148:
101:Prem C. Pandey
95:
93:Prem C. Pandey
90:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
542:
531:
528:
527:
525:
515:
513:
508:
502:
501:
500:
495:
492:
491:
485:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
457:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
429:
427:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
405:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
384:
383:
378:
374:
370:
366:
365:
364:
363:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
337:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
312:
310:
306:
302:
297:
294:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
269:
267:
263:
259:
256:
254:
251:
245:
242:
240:
237:
234:
230:
227:
224:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
188:
180:
178:
174:
170:
166:
160:
158:
154:
146:
140:
136:
132:
128:
123:
119:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:
94:
91:
89:
88:
84:
80:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
506:
503:
498:
488:
483:
430:
406:
385:
338:
313:
295:
270:
247:
243:
228:
207:
189:
181:
176:
161:
150:
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
79:Bongwarrior
447:J Readings
439:notability
369:Teleomatic
258:Teleomatic
419:user page
301:Pete.Hurd
524:Category
465:this one
145:View log
339:Comment
283:Toddst1
214:and in
118:protect
113:history
490:Iain99
484:Delete
435:WP:COI
431:Delete
407:Update
394:JuJube
390:Imtial
386:Delete
326:Crusio
314:Delete
296:delete
271:Delete
244:Delete
236:(talk)
229:Delete
173:a list
122:delete
75:delete
469:Hoary
467:. --
423:Hoary
351:Dsp13
324:!! --
279:Hoary
275:Hoary
250:NCAOR
220:Hoary
218:. --
193:Hoary
177:quote
139:views
131:watch
127:links
16:<
473:talk
451:talk
415:this
398:talk
373:talk
355:talk
330:talk
305:talk
287:talk
262:talk
208:Note
197:talk
135:logs
109:talk
105:edit
83:talk
143:– (
526::
475:)
453:)
400:)
392:.
375:)
357:)
332:)
307:)
289:)
264:)
199:)
185:*]
137:|
133:|
129:|
125:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
85:)
43:.
471:(
449:(
396:(
371:(
353:(
328:(
303:(
285:(
260:(
255:.
195:(
147:)
141:)
103:(
81:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.