Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shivam Patel

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. Michig (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shivam Patel

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

I don't believe the subject meets the notability criteria, either generally or for academics. There's a single reference to an article in a local paper (the Ahmedabad Mirror). Google and Google News searches haven't turned up any further coverage (though admittedly he's got a very common name which makes this difficult). He's published a single paper, but in a brand new pay-to-publish journal which very clearly accepts anything and everything with no editorial oversight [1]. (Each issue has nearly 200(!) articles in every field imaginable, and the "editors" don't even bother to correct glaring spelling mistakes in the titles [2]. Publication fees start at $100 per article. [3]) The article is very promotional in tone; that of course can be fixed but wouldn't change the fact that everything here comes from a single "local boy does good" puff piece in a local paper. Psychonaut (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Psychonaut (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Psychonaut (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia has a guideline WP:AB about autobiography. The article is written/edited by only 1 user who might be himself or some one close + no serious indication that he meets WP:PROF or WP:BIO - Ninney (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether or not this is an autobio is absolutely irrelevant. POV is not a reason to delete (unless something is so blatant that it is eligible for speedy deletion as spam, which is not the case here). In addition, we have very strict rules against attempts to out an editor. --Randykitty (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Tall claims, but none is backed by multiple reliable sources. The journal in which his paper appeared does not seem to be a peer reviewed one. Salih (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, it doesn't appear to have had any editorial oversight whatsoever. Here's a sample sentence: "Now a series of Is transformed into Where is as defined earlier ." —Psychonaut (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If those claims are true, wp:TOOSOON. If not (and the journal appears to be the equivalent of a vanity press), not. Either way, delete. It certainly needs editing hard for promotional wording. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously a bright young man who will no doubt go on to do great things, but not currently notable. Minor local news coverage and a vanity-published "journal" paper do not make for notability, nor do writing programs or "reading multiple novels" . I note that the article has been written by a WP:SPA. -- 101.119.14.244 (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "lecture in the 50th Annual conference of Gujarat Ganit Mandal" referred to in the article seems to have been one talk within a 4-day conference. -- 101.119.15.209 (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too early for this genius and prodigy. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The paper is just an abstract (and one paper, unless of "Einstein caliber" really is not a big deal, even if it were in a regular scientific journal). Way too soon. --Randykitty (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2013 (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.