- 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. Weak consensus that WP:PROF#C6 is not met; clear consensus that no other criterion is met. Vanamonde ( Talk) 04:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Balvir S. Tomar
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Balvir S. Tomar ( | 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)
See WP:PROF). Most of the sources are unreliable:
- Ref 1 - in Hindi, but Google Translate shows the description of Tomar is based on reported claims from a business associate (therefore not reliable)
- Ref 2 - Wikipedia guidance is to treat Google Scholar with caution as it can include sources that are not peer-reviewed, and predatory journals, etc. "In essence, it is a rough guide only".
- Ref 3 - APN News is of dubious quality - it reads like paid-for advertorial or blog content. It is not independent or journalistic in tone.
- Ref 4 - A press release (stated at bottom of article) = unreliable
- Refs 5 and 6 - from organisations founded by the subject = not independent, therefore unreliable.
This leaves Ref 7: a medical journal article co-authored by the subject in 1983. Not sufficient, IMHO, to justify notability. Paul W ( talk) 12:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paul W ( talk) 12:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. As Chairman of the university, why wouldn't he be notable per Criteria #6 of
WP:NACADEMIC?--
Bbb23 (
talk)
12:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Criteria #6 requires that the subject be in a role at "a major academic institution or major academic society" (emphasis added).
NIMS University does not appear to be a major university.
Paul W (
talk)
13:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed the word "major" and thought "now there's a murky word". How do we decide that? Number of students? Professors? How long it's been around? Major internationally? Country? State?--
Bbb23 (
talk)
13:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've been doing a clean-up of the university article. "Major" is very much down to interpretation. NIMS is a relatively recent creation (2008), one of 52 State Private Universities in Rajasthan (one of 27 Indian states) alone; it appears to have 400 faculty members and around 3700 students ( source); on the latter measure, for example, it has half the students of the University of Rajasthan, also in Jaipur. Paul W ( talk) 16:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed the word "major" and thought "now there's a murky word". How do we decide that? Number of students? Professors? How long it's been around? Major internationally? Country? State?--
Bbb23 (
talk)
13:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Criteria #6 requires that the subject be in a role at "a major academic institution or major academic society" (emphasis added).
NIMS University does not appear to be a major university.
Paul W (
talk)
13:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, while perhaps per nom it could use more sources. What is present is sufficient to just barely meet WP:GNG in my view.— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 20:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Citations not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and the data from Paul W leaves me far from convinced that NIMS is major enough for #C6. I removed a paragraph of promotionally-written material about claims of a medical breakthrough with only primary sources that appear to fail WP:MEDRS, and an additional sentence of primary-sourced promotionalism, but that left barely a stub's worth of material. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - I note recent edits by the article's creator. However, in my view, these do not change the case for deletion. One added source is a listing from a medical directory site (presumably using information sourced from the subject = unreliable); the second does not mention the subject (so is irrelevant); the third (in Hindi) appears to be an article based on NIMS University publicity (unreliable); the fourth addition reinstated a source deleted by David Eppstein for failing WP:MEDRS. The new content is also accompanied by promotional phrasing and the addition of a inline external link (contravening WP:EL). I will revert the additions, returning to the version by David Eppstein. Paul W ( talk) 18:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Citation profile is not up to NPROF C1 standards in his field, and NIMS doesn't appear sufficiently major in terms of research output or academic recognition for C6. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:51, 3 January 2023 (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.
- 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. Weak consensus that WP:PROF#C6 is not met; clear consensus that no other criterion is met. Vanamonde ( Talk) 04:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Balvir S. Tomar
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Balvir S. Tomar ( | 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)
See WP:PROF). Most of the sources are unreliable:
- Ref 1 - in Hindi, but Google Translate shows the description of Tomar is based on reported claims from a business associate (therefore not reliable)
- Ref 2 - Wikipedia guidance is to treat Google Scholar with caution as it can include sources that are not peer-reviewed, and predatory journals, etc. "In essence, it is a rough guide only".
- Ref 3 - APN News is of dubious quality - it reads like paid-for advertorial or blog content. It is not independent or journalistic in tone.
- Ref 4 - A press release (stated at bottom of article) = unreliable
- Refs 5 and 6 - from organisations founded by the subject = not independent, therefore unreliable.
This leaves Ref 7: a medical journal article co-authored by the subject in 1983. Not sufficient, IMHO, to justify notability. Paul W ( talk) 12:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paul W ( talk) 12:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. As Chairman of the university, why wouldn't he be notable per Criteria #6 of
WP:NACADEMIC?--
Bbb23 (
talk)
12:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Criteria #6 requires that the subject be in a role at "a major academic institution or major academic society" (emphasis added).
NIMS University does not appear to be a major university.
Paul W (
talk)
13:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed the word "major" and thought "now there's a murky word". How do we decide that? Number of students? Professors? How long it's been around? Major internationally? Country? State?--
Bbb23 (
talk)
13:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've been doing a clean-up of the university article. "Major" is very much down to interpretation. NIMS is a relatively recent creation (2008), one of 52 State Private Universities in Rajasthan (one of 27 Indian states) alone; it appears to have 400 faculty members and around 3700 students ( source); on the latter measure, for example, it has half the students of the University of Rajasthan, also in Jaipur. Paul W ( talk) 16:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed the word "major" and thought "now there's a murky word". How do we decide that? Number of students? Professors? How long it's been around? Major internationally? Country? State?--
Bbb23 (
talk)
13:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Criteria #6 requires that the subject be in a role at "a major academic institution or major academic society" (emphasis added).
NIMS University does not appear to be a major university.
Paul W (
talk)
13:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, while perhaps per nom it could use more sources. What is present is sufficient to just barely meet WP:GNG in my view.— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 20:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Citations not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and the data from Paul W leaves me far from convinced that NIMS is major enough for #C6. I removed a paragraph of promotionally-written material about claims of a medical breakthrough with only primary sources that appear to fail WP:MEDRS, and an additional sentence of primary-sourced promotionalism, but that left barely a stub's worth of material. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - I note recent edits by the article's creator. However, in my view, these do not change the case for deletion. One added source is a listing from a medical directory site (presumably using information sourced from the subject = unreliable); the second does not mention the subject (so is irrelevant); the third (in Hindi) appears to be an article based on NIMS University publicity (unreliable); the fourth addition reinstated a source deleted by David Eppstein for failing WP:MEDRS. The new content is also accompanied by promotional phrasing and the addition of a inline external link (contravening WP:EL). I will revert the additions, returning to the version by David Eppstein. Paul W ( talk) 18:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Citation profile is not up to NPROF C1 standards in his field, and NIMS doesn't appear sufficiently major in terms of research output or academic recognition for C6. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:51, 3 January 2023 (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.