Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sangeeta N Kale

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeeta N Kale

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ACADEMICS: very few reliable sources cover this person and it's very unlikely that the subject meets any WP:NACADEMICS criteria, given the lack of coverage by independent reliable sources and I can not find any evidence that this subject meets any of the WP:NACADEMICS criteria. Esquivalience ^t 23:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as nominator: the subject does not meet criteria 1 of WP:NACADEMICS because there is no evidence by independent, reliable sources that this subject has made substantial contributions to her discipline. The only independent source that I can find (here) covering her only states that she only commented on the innovation covered by the source. Due to the lack of reliable sources covering the subject, the other criteria are unlikely to be met by the subject. Esquivalience ^t 02:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; only one !vote is allowed. Feel free to comment all you'd like, though. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An h-index of 3 is not nearly enough for WP:PROF, and I'm not seeing other WP:PROF criteria satisfied either. -- 120.17.65.148 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC#6 and WP:GNG. As Vice-Chancellor (Note: the full Chancellor position is honorary) of the Defence Institute of Advanced Technology [1], [2]. "Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university)...." Other coverage: [3] and [4]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although link 4 is about enough to be non-trivial, link 3 is only a very minor passing mention. Also, I don't think that DIAT is a significant educational institution. Esquivalience ^t 23:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the DIAT web site, the Vice-Chancellor is Dr. Surendra Pal. Prior to him it was Dr. Prahlada. Sangeeta N Kale does not appear ever to have been the VC at DIAT. This seems to be an error by the Pune Mirror. The Internet Wayback machine confirms that in 2014, when those Pune Mirror articles were written, Dr. Prahlada was the VC. In fact, Dr. Kale is the Dean (Academics) at DIAT, a less senior post. -- 120.17.0.168 (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are hundreds of thousands of colleges in India and every college has a dean. Thousands of scientists are working on nano-technology. How does it make someone a notable figure. Missing notability. Educationtemple (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. I'd like to support more articles on women in STEM, especially in non-1st-world countries, but I just don't see the evidence of passing WP:PROF in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2015 (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.