Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aditya Tripathi

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Aditya Tripathi

Aditya Tripathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Autobiographical article. Created by an editor with a possible conflict of interest. As an assistant professor, the area of WP:PROF most likely to be met would be #1. I'm not seeing a significant amount of citations in Google Scholar. No indication of awards, chairs, or other items which would help meet WP:PROF Article is nearly completely a copy and past of his bio on the university website. RadioFan (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Just a few questions. How did you determine that the article is an autobiography? Is it significant to the deletion process? What do we do with the general notability guideline, when the subject doesn't meet the topical notability guidelines? What do we do when the article is nearly completely a copyvio? Thanks, Cind.amuse 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The article was tagged as an autobiography by the article's creator (who identifies himself as the subject of this article here). While not a sole reason to delete, its something that will be considered. Nearly complete copyvio's may be speedily deletable, I opted for AFD to give the article more of a chance, especially since reliable sources may be more difficult for me to find than someone more familiar with available resources. When a topic doesn't meet WP:GNG, we either find sufficient references in 3rd party sources to help it meet those guidelines, the consensus among editors participating in the AFD is to delete the article. Keep in mind that not only does WP:GNG apply here WP:PROF does as well and it's restrictions are far more stringent.--RadioFan (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment. I guess I should have mentioned that the questions were rhetorical.

1. If you had reviewed the editor's history, it would have been clear that many of the articles which the creator of this article starts are very similar to one another. The editor uses one article or section from another article as a template for the rest and slowly edits in the mainspace. While certainly not ideal, the article is clearly not an autobiography. The editor (User:Abhiparlib) has self-disclosed that he is Abhishek Verma, a Library and Information Sciences employee working in the Library of the Indian Parliament in New Delhi. While he is a struggling member of the Wikipedia community, with limited understanding of the English language, his goal is to write articles on notable members of Parliament. He has access to a tremendous wealth of resources and has a desire to work with Wikipedia. My goal is to work with him and attempt to find an experienced editor on the English Wikipedia that speaks his native language and would be willing to mentor him. The majority of the editor's work on Wikipedia has been deleted as a copyright violation. Whether due to a failure to grasp the English language, or a determined goal to game the system, he consistently claims ownership of images in hopes to appear that he is merely offering content or images to support the encyclopedia. I choose to assume good faith. In all though, this is not an autobiography.
2. While autobiographies are strongly discouraged and often deleted, the deletion policy does not call for or provide consideration for deletion based on the autobiographical motive of the article. Sure, it bugs me to no end when an individual gets on Wikipedia to write an article about themselves. Makes me want to pull my hair out sometimes. That said, it can't be deleted simply because it is an autobiography. The article is held to the same standards as all the others articles on Wikipedia.
3. When a subject does not meet the general notability guideline, it is deleted. Notability is established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Anything short of that calls for deletion. That said, the rhetorical question was "What do we do with the general notability guideline, when the subject doesn't meet the topical notability guidelines?" If the subject meets the GNG criteria, we follow the guideline accordingly and keep the article.
4. You state "Keep in mind that not only does WP:GNG apply here WP:PROF does as well and it's restrictions are far more stringent." In reality, the topical notability criteria serves as an indicator that reliable sources are likely. A presumption of notability, but not a confirmation. Meeting the topical notability criteria does not in and of itself solidify notability appropriate for an article. See WP:NRVE. Some academics may not meet any of the topical criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. Conversely, it is possible for an academic to be notable according to the PROF test, and still not meet the criteria appropriate topic for an article on Wikipedia, due to a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see WP:Verifiability. It all goes back to the WP:GNG criteria.
5. And finally, if an article is nearly completely a copyvio, the goal is to remove the copyvio from the article. If the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed. If all of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement or removing the problem text is not an option because it would render the article unreadable, check the page history; if an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version. If no non-infringing version exists, the article is a clear G12 criteria calling for speedy deletion. The copyvio should have been addressed appropriately, prior to sending the article for deletion discussion.
6. At this point, we need to backtrack and address the copyright violation. Revert to an earlier version and stub it down if you have to, in order to remove the copyvio. Once that is done, pending viable content remaining, the article clearly meets the general notability guideline, as demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse 03:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Addressing each of the points above.

1. The creator of the article added the {{:template:autobiography}} template and then uploaded an image with the comment "I hereby affirm that I, (Dr. Aditya Tripathi) am is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of photograph". If these are 2 different people, it's hard to tell that from the edits. I'm still left wondering why that editor would tag it as autobiographical if it isn't.

• This diff should be able to answer your question. [1] Essentially, the editor copied an Indian Academics Infobox template from another article. When the copy was made, the autobiography template was inadvertently picked up and placed in the newly created article. Note that while the editor attempted to edit the new infobox, the birthdate from the previous article is overlooked and remains intact. As far as the image permissions assertion, according to your understanding, the editor is like ten different people now. In reviewing the editor's talk page, it is clear that numerous images uploaded by this editor have been deleted, lacking copyright permissions. The particular image for Tripathi has been previously deleted four times. The latest attempt to ensure the upload remains is an assertion that the editor is the individual in the image, giving copyright permission to use the image. The image is currently flagged for deletion, lacking further evidence of permission. Cind.amuse 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

2. while no policy calls for consideration of the autobiographical nature of an articles to be considered but neither does any policy prevent it from being considered. Since the original creator of the article

• Content and articles are deleted according to Wikipedia policy. Outside of the deletion policy, we really can't pick and choose reasons to delete, based on our own personal preferences. Cind.amuse 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

3. Let's stick to discussing the notability of this article, questions about WP:GNG or WP:PROF should be placed on their respective talk pages.

• I don't have questions about these guidelines. This discussion relates to your failure to acknowledge the existing sources provided in the article which clearly indicate significant coverage as covered in the general notability guidelines. Based on your assertions, it was apparent that you were minimizing the requirement to establish notability through verifiable evidence and sources. See WP:NRVE. Cind.amuse 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Verifiability is policy and adresses the appropriateness of sources which is a separate question than notability. An article can have 100 references to verifiable sources but that doesn't make the subject notable necessarily.

4. I think we are getting a bit bogged down in semantics but both WP:GNG and WP:PROF are both guidelines and both will likely be used here. WP:PROF represents established consensus about determining the notability of academics. Niether trump the other, because neither are policy, they are guidelines, tools in forming a consensus. The only thing it all goes back to is that consensus.

• The specifics were brought up due to your rationale for deletion focusing solely on the subject's failure to meet WP:PROF. While notability is a guideline, verifiability is a policy. Accordingly, the verifiability policy clearly addresses notability based on significant coverage presented through reliable and independent sources. Some academics may not meet the PROF test, but may still be notable, based on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article in question clearly has significant sources.

5. If you feel that stubbing the article down is the right thing to do, please do. Copy/paste of the publication list in particular is concerning.

• While the lede prose needs cleaned up, the publication list is not a copyright violation. Cind.amuse 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

6. The notability issue must still be addressed however. I'm not seeing indication evidence of significant impact by this person's research, any indication awards or recognition, editing of an established scholarly journal , significant impact outside of academia or any of the other criteria in WP:PROF. The references provide demonstrate that he has had his papers published in a number of journals, this doesn't help satisfy WP:GNG however.

• You're not seeing evidence of significant impact by Tripathi's research? Under the WP:PROF guidelines, impact is "broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Under the WP:GNG guidelines, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Impact has been demonstrated and notability has been established accordingly. In addition to the 25+ references offered in the article, additional source material includes [2][3] Cind.amuse 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see evidence of significant impact. The bulk of the references in the article are to papers authored by or other information hosted on the department website, that doesn't do much to establish notability. See the discussion of GS hits below for specifics on how papers authored figure into determining notability. Also WP:GHITS dont help establish notability, especially for academics. Google is a tool here, not a scoreboard.--RadioFan (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

7. And finally, this is a discussion, any questions asked are likely to get answered, rhetorical or not.--RadioFan (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• The puzzlement was not in the question, but in the response. 1. An existing autobiography is not an appropriate reason for deletion. However, you presented this in your rationale for deletion. 2. You disregard the general notability guideline. 3. You failed to follow process on addressing copyright violations. Puzzling. Cind.amuse 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I thought I clarified that. Nothing tells us we have to delete autobiographies but it is something worth pointing out. Turns out it's not an autobiography but it turns out that there is a potential conflict of interest here. The relationship has not been clarified. Is the creator of the article a 3rd party who came across the subject's work and was motivated to create the article or are they an employee of the department where the subject works? I, and many other editors, are going to view an article created by an independent 3rd party very differently than one created by the subject of the article or someone closely associated with the subject of the article. Its worth discussion and clarification.--RadioFan (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

--RadioFan (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Only a tiny presence on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC).

• Comment. I get a return of 26 hits. What would you consider significant? Cind.amuse 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I get no citations of any of his paper. It means Google Scholar display citation different in different computers!!!!!!!!!--Open3215 (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Look back at that Google Scholar search and you'll see that 20 of those hits are to papers or entries in proceedings authored by this person and 6 are citations to those works. For academics, citations of works by others is a good indication of notability, which doesn't seem to be the case here. An academic who publishes 1 paper and is cited 100 times will much more easily meet WP:PROF than an one who publishes 100 papers and only 1 is cited.--RadioFan (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Only too true. The idea has been encapsulated in the notion of h index, which is often used in these academic AfD debates. An h index of at least 10 is usually needed for a pass of WP:Prof#C1; the index of this candidate does not remotely approach this. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

• Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. In determining the notability of an academic subject, we look at a set of criteria presented under WP:PROF and/or WP:GNG. Under the WP:PROF guidelines, impact is "broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Under the WP:GNG guidelines, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Impact has been demonstrated and notability has been established accordingly. In addition to the 25+ references offered in the article, source material includes [4][5] Cind.amuse 09:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - yes, there are a large number of references, but they are nearly all things that he has written, and that is not enough to satisfy WP:PROF (where a note says: "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1") or the WP:GNG which asks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - the word rerefence, citation is used in mixed. No work of Tripathi has received any citation as indicates in GS. He is in his most publications serving as joint author, so credibility is unknown. He make available all his work which is available in other webs resources. That does not means refercnes. It is siply link. He nevear received any awards. Finally, all the programs/software he claimed that he has developed are really matter of confirmation that whether they are in paper, or any existence.--Open3215 (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to post your CV (WP:NOTRESUME). There is no indication given in the article of notability under either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. I was unable to find any evidence of notability on Google scholar either. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Any chance for a nomination that contains the ad hominem argument COI that does not begin with that as the first rationale? Anarchangel (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete put simple, does not meet the relevant criterion of WP:PROF, and no wonder at that, because few assistant professors do, and the actual publication record is typical (& even a little on the low side) for an assistant professor. I would obviously like to get as many professors in my own subject included, but we should start at higher levels. Perhaps the contributor can be brought to realize this. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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.