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. Clear consensus. DGG ( talk ) 09:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aadarsh Mishra[edit]

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

I declined speedy deletion, because it seemed to me that there was an assertion of notability and a cited source. However, that doesn't mean this is actually a notable person. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong/Speedy delete. Subject is a non-notable student (he has, for example, won no prizes). Journal publications are claimed, but the International Journal for Mechanical and Production Engineering and the International Journal for Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research appear not to exist. The Journal of Metallurgy and Material Science exists, but is a very obscure Indian journal, and there is no evidence of the subject publishing in it. The cited papers "Thin Films of Tin Sulphide for Use in Solar Cell Devices," "Dry Sliding of Ti-6Al-4V Alloys," and "Dry Sliding Wear Behaviour of Titanium Carbide with Copper Composites" cannot be found in Google Scholar. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect a hoax. In addition, the article text is a copyvio. -- 120.23.74.123 (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I declined speedy deletion, because it seemed to me that there was an assertion of notability and a cited source.Aadarsh Mishra is a prominent researcher in the field of material science. His research papers are available on the GOOGLE SCHOLAR:

<http://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?as_ylo=2014&q=aadarsh+mishra&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5>

Besides that, his cover story has been published in 'The New Indian Express':

<http://www.newindianexpress.com/education/edex/A-Thirst-for-Answers/2014/07/14/article2325732.ece> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.254.119 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 November 2014

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, I see the papers now (possibly it was a spelling issue), and I see the International Journal for Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research at ijmerr.com. However, I note that none of the papers has a single citation, and IJMERR does not appear to be a legitimate journal. It doesn't appear on standard lists, and it seems they'll publish anyone who pays the fee. I don't think publishing there contributes to notability. -- 120.23.108.6 (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IJMERR is a very reputed journal with Impact factor 1.009 and ICV rating 5.55. It is indexed in University of Melbourne, Australia and Google scholar. Since the papers are hardly 2-3 months older, how can you conclude about the citation? It takes a lot of time to cite a paper. Aadarsh Mishra has also been indexed in The New Indian express for his research- it means that they have already trusted his research and found it to be correct- The new Indian express is one of the prominent newspapers of India. Besides that Aadarsh has been associated with prominent research centre- IISc, Bangalore.

<http://www.newindianexpress.com/education/edex/A-Thirst-for-Answers/2014/07/14/article2325732.ece>

Comment. IJMERR is not a "very reputed journal." It appears on no lists I've seen, and the only evidence about impact factor is self-reported, which is hardly reliable. Browsing with Google Scholar, none of the papers in IJMERR seem to be cited. Also, a newspaper report is not endorsement of research quality, nor does a single newspaper report provide notability. And, per WP:NOTINHERITED, being "associated with IISc" is irrelevant. -- 120.23.108.6 (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF, which requires impact (for instance in the form of citations), not just publication. Google scholar shows 19 papers with zero citations to any of them, the opposite of impact. And, not that it matters for this decision, but although IJMERR doesn't seem to be included on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers, its web site has red flags on it that make me suspect it is not a respectable journal (notably, promising an acceptance decision within a week of submission; also, supposed editor in chief doesn't mention the journal anywhere on his academic web site). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt very much that The New Indian Express has engineers on its staff who do peer review. Dougweller (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Papers don't make someone notable on their own. The one story on him seems to have been written by an intern at the newspaper.http://www.gohachi.com/s/kheya+chattopadhyay+xaverian+theatrical+society] This isn't enough to establish notability by our criteria. Dougweller (talk)

Note: both the unsigned comments above were posted from 131.251.254.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and there's also one higher up from 131.251.254.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). These belong to the same small range as 131.251.252.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 131.251.254.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), IPs which I blocked a few hours ago for their deletion of most of this discussion, see the page history. Obviously this is all the same disruptive individual. In other words, the two comments immediately above constitute block evasion. You're not allowed to edit when you're blocked, you know, and you were blocked for good reason. I've blocked the 131.251.252.0/22 range now. If the individual jumps somewhere else, I'll just as soon semiprotect the discussion (with apologies to 120.23.xx). And if anybody wants to tidy the page by deleting all 131.251.xx comments, I've no objection. Bishonen | talk 23:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

STRONG DELETE This is the kind of PR Fakery (IPs g/locate to U/Cardiff) which gives England a bad name. 16:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete Anyone whose strongest claim to fame is being a "student in x field" does not pass notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2014 (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.