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. StarM 04:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vrajlal Sapovadia[edit]

Vrajlal Sapovadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable academic, i.e. does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Proposed for deletion, but tag removed by 210.212.158.51, who added the following notability claim: "His 8 papers were among the top downloaded paper on SSRN this year." There is however no source for this claim and, in any event, I don't think that the number of downloads is extremely relevant for determining notability. Rather, SSRN (wherein academic papers can be uploaded directly by authors) seems to indicate that his publications are (almost?) never cited [1]. Moreover, Google Scholar appears to indicate that this academic has not published a single paper before 2004 [2]. No hit on Google Books. Likely conflict of interest (see edit history). --Edcolins (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --Edcolins (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. His awards are not at the level that would qualify him for WP:PROF criterion #2. Notable professors in his field typically publish in top-tier refereed journals, of which those with high citation impacts have acceptance rates of around 5%. He apparently has no article in any of those journals. Most of his papers are published through SSRN, which is a self-publication database. In SSRN, he has zero citations. His most downloaded paper in SSRN has 533 downloads, and has a download rank of 7,979 (i.e., there are 7,978 papers with more downloads). Google Scholar returns several hits, mostly to his SSRN papers, but with 2, 1 and mostly zero citations.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Should not delete. He is not merely an academician, he is reformer, he is low profile teacher, he is silent worker for the poorest & illiterate people, he is Right to Information activist, he is catalyst for cleaning administration by fighting against corruption. He is grass level social reformer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.158.51 (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• He is so silent that he has to create his one userpage and article in WP and upload his own photopgraph to show in the article. Does he think that WP is same as LinkedIn?--GDibyendu (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All these are indeed good works, but that is not what notability is about in WP. Notability is not necessarily a good thing: goor people can be not notable and very bad people can be notable. Too many people seem to think that it is an honor to have their bio in Wikipedia. Well, Adolf Hitler has a bio, too. He's very notable, and at the same time very evil. --Crusio (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:Self-advertising from a not-so-notable professor.--GDibyendu (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to User:Sapovadia and Delete. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean by "Move to Vrajlal Sapovadia"? --Edcolins (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Anon vote ignored anyway. `'Míkka>t 23:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete: no independent sources which discuss notability of the person. `'Míkka>t 23:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the download count can be sourced from ssrn but is irrelevant, considering that the papers seem to be merely tutorials, not research--essentially none of them has been published at his point. No citations in GScholar, nothing in scopus. His notability at teaching would need real sources outside the university. DGG (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per DGG comments above. Does not appear to pass any of the criteria of WP:PROF based on the information available. SSRN papers are basically self-publications (like preprints in arXiv) and do not really count until the papers have appeared in some peer-reviewed publications. Very little citability of his work in googlescholar, WebOfScience and Scopus, and nothing in googlebooks[3]. The awards mentioned are not sufficiently significant to overcome absence of explicit evidence of impact of his work. Nsk92 (talk) 20:34, 14 November 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.