Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudhaker Upadhyay (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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sudhaker Upadhyay (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)
Early stage academic whose page was deleted in 2017. Page was recently recreated, failed at AfC so editor moved it to main claiming that he passes WP:NPROF. While his citations have improved, at most he is an asst_prof (perhaps an independent researcher) in a fairly high citation area. No awards, no coverage, still some years away from a pass of WP:NPROF. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Astronomy, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a high-enough citation area that I don't think two barely-triple-digit citation counts are enough for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Can't see anything here that would clearly meet NACADEMIC, and the sources are obviously nowhere near enough satisfying GNG. (If someone does come up with evidence to support either, pls ping me and I'll take another look.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. The citation count is nowhere near high enough to justify inclusion for someone who is still a junior academic and without a significant award. I also don't think his research activity so far is particularly impressive even among early career researchers in his field e.g. compare to the profile of this academic, who got her PhD around the same time as the article subject, but has over four times as many total citations and a h-index of 66. Leonstojka (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think it makes much sense to compare citations and h-index between researchers in quantum gravity and in galaxy formation. The authorship and citation patterns are too different. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. For the same reason I declined the draft, fails WP:NACADEMIC. RangersRus (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: lacks SIGCOV in my searches so far, though not opposed to Draftify as an ATD. as Leonstojka (talk) pointed out, The subjects career still has chance to grow.Lorraine Crane (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: a case of WP:TOOSOON, he doesnt seem to pass WP:NPROF at this point. --hroest 19:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- 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.