Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhijit Naskar

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) 07:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Naskar[edit]

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

No notability whatsoever. All sources are self-published. Amazon source leads to self-published Kindle books. Web search returns zero refs that are not self-published.New Media Theorist (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Nothing found that could establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This should have been marked for CSD as this is a clear case of Copyvio from here, here, here, here and here. Appears to be a clear case of WP:COI and also WP:PROMO. I also happened to notice that none of his books have an ISBN Number and are identified by vendor's identification number (ASIN). Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Abhijit Naskar isn't indexed in any major peer-reviewed journal or database about neuroscience. Google Scholar shows zero publications, and PubMed too shows zero publications from Naskar. Abhijit has only two publications under Global Journal of Medical Research (GJMR) — which is a minor open-access journal not indexed, and with weak peer-review. The key point here is that Abhijit Naskar is an independent researcher, which means he is not a real researcher in the field of neuroscience, and isn't affiliate to any academic research or team. Naskar is not a real scientist, but some on-line fool talking and writing about pseudo-scientific topics that somehow are shoehorned to neuroscience. In short, that page violates WP:OR, WP:COI and WP:ACADEMIC, thus should be removed from WP. Toffanin (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All his books have genuine ISBN numbers and also searchable on google books and Research Gate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viliasenova (talk • contribs) 15:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That proves he wrote and published some books, as anyone can. (last I checked an ISBN cost $100 from a PoD publisher). It doesn't prove that anyone wrote about Abhijit Naskar, which is what is needed to establish notyability. DES ^(talk) 17:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Above user Viliasenova is single purpose account, with, nodoubt, an undisclosed WP:COI who has been trying to puff up the article since AfD began. They also removed the AfD tag which was replaced by a bot. Viliasenova, please don't do that. Are you related to the article subject?15:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A true scientist means he who utilizes science for the betterment of the masses — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mairushinka (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Above user Mairushinka is also a single-purpose account who has only edited the article in question. More experienced users, how does one deal with such interference in the genuine discussion? New Media Theorist (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE now Viliasenova has put up a FAKE closure tag for this AfD on the article's talk page! Hilarious. Dude, stop that.The article is going to be deleted because the subject is not notable. New Media Theorist (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't need to be dealt with; this process is not a vote, and the closing admin will look at the arguments rather than the numbers involved, especially when there are strange votes from new users. If it gets really disruptive you could report it at WP:AIV, I guess? I wouldn't worry about it. Oh and Delete; the article lacks reliable sources and, as far as I can tell, notability. --Ashenai (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned Viliasenova about disruptive editing, and he or she hasn't repeated such edits. That is all that need be done about the matter in my view. DES ^(talk) 17:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The cited sources are basically all to the subject's own publications, and in no way establish notability. I did a web search and couldn't find any beter sources. Nine publications at Research Gate indicates nothing, i have more than that listed with them, I think -- and I am in no way notable on such grounds. RG encourages anyone with any publication to dig up and link everything they possibly can. The books are published by "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform" which has no editorial oversight, it is in effect a digital printer which will print anything anyone is willing to pay them to print. That means that their mere existence is in no way an indication of notability, as publishing multiple non-fiction books with a major traditional publisher might be. DES ^(talk) 17:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2015 (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.