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. — Coren ^(talk) 03:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article has been authored by the subject of the article in violation of conflict of interest guidlines, leading one to question the subject's notability. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak delete. The article makes numerous claims, yet there are no citations to back them up. I'm sure Archana is a delightful person, but I personally agree with the nominator when he says, not notable enough. I would have asked this to be kept for expansion, but there are simply too many lists, and not enough text. A Prodigy ^{Sign Here}/_Contact 18:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete As written, this is an unreferenced bulleted resume-style list. There's presumably notability here, and I'd consider change of vote if anyone cleans it up into an actual article, but it can't stay here in this state. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Uncertain As written, this is a PR handout, containing none of the information necessary to show notability for a research scientist. It's not talks and seminars that show recognition of significance as a physicist by one's peers, but peer-reviewed journal articles--I can';t seem to find any, but there must be some given the other degrees--the name is fairly common, which does not help. She seems essentially at the equivalent level of Associate Professor, though her latest degree is an MBA, which casts some doubt on the nature of her actual work. The only thing she's an editor of is a section the CERN in-house newsletter. A reviewer for a single 2nd tier journal is not particularly impressive either. DGG (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even still -- as you said, she's not notable, regardless of who wrote it. Her additions only make for a more dubious claim, not to mention that there really isn't any article other than the intro. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. She, or her friend, has added a large number of external links to the article. The problem being that her contributions to these linked articles are essentially PR-type comments. I really can not understand why it's so hard to show her notability. Perhaps that's just the fate of staff physicists. She's still working on the article so I hope I will eventually be able to vote keep. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her employment at CERN does not equate with notability. Highly trained NASA physicists aren't necessary notable because of their employment. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although a respectable job, not everyone on the permanent staff at CERN is automatically notable, it requires more than that and i am not seeing any evidence of it in any sources. Also the article reads more like a CV then an encyclopedic article. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Editing issues aside, there is a possiblity of notability (that I don't have the resources or time atm to ferret out). There appears to be a biologist of the same name, which muddies things. However, 437 hits in google books and 368 hits in google scholar lead me to think that we need to dig a little further, which only one of the editors above appears to have done.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "has given invited seminars and lectures at numerous institutions", but I cannot find any peer reviewed research among the Google hits. There is this review of Micropattern Gas detectors. The links to mainstream media that I have examined are quotes from her about LHC, rather than coverage of her. "The only Indian permanent staff member of CERN" is not sufficient notability. William Avery (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Annual Reviews are rather prestigious and invitation only. Of course, with two authors, it's difficult to know who got the invitation.... --Crusio (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2008 (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.