Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Kumar Rai

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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Kumar Rai

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

Created by the subject with his own pic-shot. Captain Spark (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The further reading section includes his forefathers and grand parents,--Captain Spark (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Seems to be a newer faculty member. In fact, the university profile lists him as having only bachelor's and master's degrees, and the apparently self-published reference for his Ph.D. actually describes him as a Ph.D. student. GS citations are a little confusing, as a Ratan Kumar Rai has a GS profile, but even combined, I don't think that the two RK Rais would meet the citation threshold. Only brief mentions in reliable sources. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject is not covered enough in reliable sources, thus lacking notability. Most of the page's content is also unverified because of the poor references. Meatsgains (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's a clear-cut case: there's nothing in the article to indicate notability and a google search returns next to nothing relevant. Uanfala (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability. Assistant professors are usually too early in their careers to have any academic notability and this article presents no evidence for being an exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PROF. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Vipinhari || talk 15:00, 4 March 2016 (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.