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. WP:SNOW NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ujjawal Krishnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Seems to fail notability? Few search results. I can't work out who is vandalising what. Matt 190417 (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise that the article is only a week old, but I think it's generous to suggest more sources can be collected. Matt 190417 (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject of the article is also the user that created the article, see 14 June revision to User:AchaksurvisayaUdvejin, a fact conveniently removed right after he created a self bio. Jevansen (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Argument: Does it fail to satisfy the notability criteria? Vandalism can be found in recent edits where some irrelevant comments have been made in the context of the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs) 12:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:GNG. Matt 190417 (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. To answer the question, yes most definitely. Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC, WP:JOURNALIST or the General Notability Guidelines. Jevansen (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Also to note that AchaksurvisayaUdvejin, judging by his talk page, has created similar articles that have not survived AfD before based on notability guidelines. Matt 190417 (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment's reply If earlier articles made with this account didn't survive the criteria, it doesn't meant that all will not. Expected to not judge randomly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs)
    • That much I agree. We should judge only the individual merits of the page. Matt 190417 (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I have discussed with experienced editors and consulted them before putting this article. As far as notability is concerned, the subject does satisfy so. And remaining question of subtle phrases and extension, it is already a stub on roll. Deleting wouldn't be fine, consideration of it as stub, as persistent, may help. Thanks..— Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs)

      Comment: We, here, are editors and it is more about enriching the encyclopaedic entity. There must be sanguine flow on the par edge of distinction. We should debate and try to resolve the issue. I stand with my point. The page has been earlier reviewed and administrator allowed it, but recent edits(reverted ones) have certainly been disruptive. Please see to the edits and derogatory remarks on the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs)

      Comment on notability: Notability is not transitory, so at the time page was made, it was reviewed and accepted and even admin intervened. The present circumstances of tossing page in AfD only means for discussion. The writer has credibility/notability not only by some references but by his writings. And subject satisfies the criteria of category very well, as reviewed by earlier patrollers and administrator.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs)

      Having written a few articles does not in itself satisfy notability criteria, which are laid out by WP:NACADEMIC and WP:JOURNALIST. The article has not been listed in AfD before, so as far as I understand, this is the first community review of the article. I recognise that the article may well have been accepted by previous administrators. If so, then this should survive AfD. Also, please see WP:CRYSTAL insofar as 'transitory' notability is concerned: Wikipedia must reflect past and present notability rather than future potential notability.

      Also, when contributing to talk pages, please sign off your comments with four tilde (~) at the end, so that it is clear who has said what. Matt 190417 (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep|Notability as a scientist: The subject is a published researcher and also satisfies Wikipedia's policy on arxiv repository, as cited. Wikidata of research gate profile and google scholar profile all do support special position of the subject, and hence must also be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs) 13:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have COI, i.e. DOI of scientific publication and also Harvard-ads feature of my article. Already, Cornell's arXiv repository features the article, we may improve the article that way. There appears so sudden reason for deletion. We may put the bitter talk aside and find out how to improve the article while relaxing the deletion. If that wouldn't satisfy notability criteria of academia, it will further be nominated and there is no escape. Hope, we work for good. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AchaksurvisayaUdvejin You should not be editing this article. Please see WP:COI. If you have a conflict of interest (which you do, because the article is about you), you should not be going anywhere near it. Matt 190417 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:NBIO. Also, the COI hasn't been declared. MT Train^Talk 13:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No independent reliable sources. --regentspark (comment) 13:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep| On the day the article was created, I well mentioned in the talk page that improvement is needed and in case what is verifiable is needed that is the first job of those who claim it to delete before trusting the verifiable sources.

Find COI here on abstract page to trust in source https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324121976_On_detection_and_annihilation_of_spherical_virus_embedded_in_a_fluid_matrix_at_low_and_moderate_Reynolds_number Administrator must take into account these all before deciding, sometimes truth is shadow by ultimate darkness but a single ray is enough to nullify falsehoods — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• I have struck this out as you are allowed only one keep/delete comment per AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Source Here is another independent source from Harvard which featured the paper http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?arXiv:1712.02126 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • AchaksurvisayaUdvejin, the links provided by you merely shows that he has a published paper. Practically every professor has one or many published papers but that is not enough to demonstrate notability. You need to find independent sources that assert notability. Please read WP:PROF.--regentspark (comment)
    • Reply on notability: The subject has other papers as well, in addition one can visit google scholar's verified page of the subject.

    Notability is seconded by resources on columnist part as well. it feels egregious that on every argument there is another loophole and I have to clarify every time.

    Admin must consider snowball clause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs) 14:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It does not matter how many papers the subject has written, or that the subject has written any one individual paper, unless the subject can meet any one of the following criteria (copied from WP:NACADEMIC) as a result of the papers:

    1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

    2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

    3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE).[2]

    4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

    5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

    6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

    7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

    8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

    9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

    Those of us who have argued in favour of deletion have not introduced new 'loopholes'. We have cited, on multiple occasions, the same notability guidelines and criteria, principally WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG (as well as WP:JOURNALIST). Matt 190417 (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply on notability: The subject well satisfies WP:PROF as most of the criteria are supported by the fact. Secondly, not every academician wins a Nobel and this may sound ridiculous. For other accolades, please visit wikidata supported Researchgate and other profiles for confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs) 14:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "independent source from Harvard" isn't. It's an entry in a database that includes everything posted on the arXiv. XOR'easter (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note: This is not a voting round and only a discussion to extend the encyclopaedic gamut. Howsoever, the views are welcomed but staunch sidelining is derogatory.

Admin is requested to pay attention to the fact that notability is strongly made on academics part and as far as these claims of non reliable sourcing on column part are there, notability of the platforms must be observed. This snowball fight must end soon and that for betterment for the Wikipedia community. Please consider POV and checklist the criteria. Thanks.AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not transitory and a question to be tossed again and again: At the time page was made, administrator as well as the reviewers reviewed it and didn't put on speedy deletion. The page persisted but the recent vandalism gathered attention of editors and so discussion is triggered but that nowhere crosses the mark on the paradigm of notability and concern. Points have been very clear and defence has been well put. Admin is requested to do consider the mentions. Thanks. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. His Google scholar profile shows only four papers, all uncited and I think all not reliably published, a clear failure of WP:PROF#C1. No claim of notability other than through academic publication is made by the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment's reply on citation: The geneticist and Nobel prizewinner Oliver Smithies, who died in January aged 91, was a modest, self-effacing inventor. It was typical of him to trot out the tale of one of his greatest flops: a paper1 about measuring osmotic pressure published in 1953, which, as he put it, had “the dubious distinction of never being cited”(taken from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08404-0 ). The seriously ridiculous statements bing made here.

Admin must pay attention to dubious statements being made as a stake to delete the article AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:CRYSTAL. The subject's paper is uncited and the paper has not given him a Nobel prize yet. When the subject wins the Nobel prize for his uncited paper, he becomes notable, and then we can create the article. Until then, the subject is unnotable and the article ought to be deleted. Matt 190417 (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was just an instance, Matt! Not a place for humour where discussion is on track for some good.

  An important nexus on vandalism The subject is more about protection against vandalism and improvement of POV but minimum criteria of notability of academics is well reciprocated. Admin Eppstein himself reverted a blunder made on the page by anonymous ip, hence I urge for protection and improvement of page considering minimum notability criterion which even Eppstein marked in last line than abrupt deletion. There is no blabber about the subject and as it is a stub, it asks for the improvement against deletion. The concise documentation on reliable sources is only present and so satisfies the stub criterion. Keep AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  On Notability I think, Matt, you should first need read the Wikipedia criteria that WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BATTLE GROUND.

  I think, you are very distant from science.

  http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/23/academic-papers-citation-rates-remler/ AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • We are littering this page and talking across each other. We are going around in circles citing the same points. I will make no further comments. Matt 190417 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per David Eppstein above, fails all WP:PROF criteria in my eyes. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A gateway towards resolution: As Editor has well marked the position on notability criteria, there is no meaning in moving in circles. As Matt tried improving the article after he found it protection nomination page where I had nominated the article, instantly the references could have made him nominate it for a discussion and now I have also mentioned some other sources, i.e. COI of publication and also Hardavrd-ads references, that can also be compiled. DOI can be added in the references. This point I have made clear at the moment I made a draft, created the article and mentioned the constraint in the talk page which administrator at that time understood well and approved the page. It is only the abrupt vandalism which put the page in the limelight but that was for all good. We better focus on improving the article by summing up references than engaging in a battle for no good reason. Thanks to you all. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI to understand what I meant by it earlier. MT Train^Talk 17:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated in both contexts- conflict of interest(WP:COI) as well as certificate of insurance(DOI). I will refrain from editing the COI subject as it is closely related. But I strongly believe, article must be put for improvement and categorization than an abrupt deletion- keeping in mind minimum criteria of notability to acquire space on Wikipedia is satisfied.AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Canvass Comment - just a note to @AchaksurvisayaUdvejin:, I've dropped a longer message to your talk page, but please don't canvass editors to join your viewpoint on the AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly not a canvass comment to influence discussion but to garner various viewpoints. Secondly, every kind of notability will fail to hit the ground when consensus appears to be biased and to counteract view point at every instance instead of judging neutral. Even after that, I believe that an experienced Wikipedia on the proximity of neutrality will take decision on the mentioned conditions of the defence. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AchaksurvisayaUdvejin I have already asked you to read WP:Good Faith. Please refrain from accusing other Wikipedia editors of "hate talk", "verbal fight[ing]", "biased", not "judging neutral", etc. As you might say, it does great harm to the community when there is such great absence of trust. MB190417 (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is an evident absence of trust, that is in your case who flagged it for speedy deletion directly despite of knowing that page has been already reviewed and one administrator also interfered earlier.Don't move in circles, you are trapped in your own statement. The way the page has been marked demonstrated a direct vandalism where now you are playing with words ad have no evidence to contribute something productive knowing that somehow criteria is satisfied. Please refrain from abrupt unjustifiable differences and withdraw. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Speedy deletion is not the same as PROD is not the same as AfD. This page has not been marked for speedy deletion. This is the first and only AfD this page has encountered. The procedure for AfD is an entirely separate procedure to administrative approval of a page's creation. MB190417 (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD is not a method to discuss about the article,you could highlight it on talk page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs) 06:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability indicated by sources present, nor in any sources that could be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above by David Eppstein. MB 20:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient citations to pass WP:PROF#C1, and no other indications of notability. There are times when a not-very-highly cited scholar can be notable on other grounds, but by all indications, this isn't one of them. Being an "editor" at Academia.edu doesn't appear to be a substantial recognition [1]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• On verification: Author is not self published, his works have been published by reliable third party sources which make an eminent mainstream media platform in the country. But these will not be highlighted because consensus prefixed to move in some biased direction. I am exhausted and terrified. I better rest my case. Now whether article survives or it doesn't, it nowhere matters anymore. It will not lower the credibility and notability of the subject, but the proliferation of staunch deleters is non less than a vandalism in some cases. I will do an injustice if I don't count this one among some. Adieu. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Mr. Krishnam is an undergraduate student according to a note in an article he wrote as recent as May 30, 2018. [2]

  Ujjawal Krishnam is an undergraduate research scholar in the department of physics, at the Maharaja Sayajirao University Of Baroda.

   — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because undergraduate?: How does that matter? Can't an undergraduate be an author, researcher? What a hilarious take!

Truly, democracy dies in darkness! AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources in the chatter above, and I did my own internet search as well. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And undergrad students do not meet WP:NSCHOLAR-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• BeenAroundAWhile just a few google searches? I request you to visit scientist stubs to learn more about category and defence of stub! AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation on counter arguments: As noted by Wikipedia community, a person who doesn't meet additional criteria may still be notable. And the subject satisfies the basic confrontation against for what Wikipedia is not

• WP:BASIC Sources reflecting the notability and genuine presence of the subject.

• WP: PERSON WP:PROF Researchers, scholars referred as academics are notable in the world of ideas without any biography or secondary source.

• WP:AUTHOR As Subject has contributed significant columns on mentioned topics, as in bibliography of article, which are notable reliable platforms and obviously they are not self published or dubious blogs.

This hints towards a clear consensus clarifying the persistent doubts. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and David Eppstein. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NPROF is very far from being met, and the person also doesn't meet WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 11:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Jevansen, et al. Note the article's creator is currently blocked for making legal threats and probably for all their antics in this AfD and obvious canvassing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nomination, bonadea, and David Eppstein. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete utterly non-notable, WP:COI article. Plus claims that this person is an editor at Academia.edu seems mostly a self-provided blurb uncritically accepted by a publication. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up nothing of note, extremely difficult for an undergrad to be wikinotable but who knows in the future... a definite case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, self-promotional vanity article that fails WP:GNG and everything else that applies. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vain illiterate who claims to be a columnist. EEng 14:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails all possible notability guidelines. WP:TOOSOON — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can we invoke the WP:SNOWBALL clause here? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more WP:AVALANCHE. EEng 15:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expected opposition to speedy deletion, PROD etc. from article creator and unregistered IPs, hence why I nominated for deletion instead. MB190417 (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Does not meet any inclusion criterion you could care to name. Self puffery.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2018 (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.