Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Shaji

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. Such vanity article. Shii (tock) 11:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Shaji[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NACADEMICS. No non-trivial mention found in sources independent of the subject. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 08:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

_talk This article deserve to be there, anyone who works in the area of open quantum system knows his importance. He is the student of the Prof. Sudarshan and who else is most suitable to be there ? see this http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110601/full/474024a.html Hindu has also quoted him regarding the nobel prize controversy. http://www.thehindu.com/2005/12/02/stories/2005120206181100.htm Are you guys a serious wikipedia editors ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sijothankam (talk • contribs)

Dear Serious Editor Sijothankam, he only has a passing mention in The Hindu, which is totally irrelevant to establish notability. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 10:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sijothankam (talk) Dear Vigyani read some physics books and quantum information theory. You have to know what is a spin statistic theorem to understand what he had done !!! He has only a passing mention in Hindu, I added Hindu for you to understand !. By the way, do you know what is Nature ? They had written in Nature on his theoretical findings !!! It is better to have a minimum eligility to assess the content. It is difficult to enlighten on ignorance !

Hello Sijothankam (aka 82.159.6.217?) -Make a Facebook page for him to describe what the hell has he done that no media bothered to write about him in detail. He is simply ineligible for inclusion on encyclopedia. Find the eligibility criteria here. See also, WP:NOT for better understanding of Wikipedia. And, yes please, when you leave a message, make sure you're logged in and sign it typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Yes, subject is ineligible for inclusion on encyclopedia, for failing WP:NACADEMICS, WP:GNG, WP:BIO and each and every other notability guideline. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to the article itself, appears to be an Assistant Professor. At such junior rank academics are rarely notable. The two awards listed in the article are student-level awards, which, per WP:PROF, do not confer academic notability. Scholar shows one highly cited paper and a reasonable overall citability record, but not enough to pass WP:PROF at this stage. Nsk92 (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet another non-notable Indian academic. (As with previous one this day's haul, recommend sockpuppet check of associated editors.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Fails WP:Prof by a wide mile. Seems to be only a self-promotional. Does not meet any of our notability guidelines. Nothing worth saving or merging.

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.