Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardik Gohel

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. ✗plicit 23:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hardik Gohel[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. This page is a WP:RESUME sourced only by ROUTINE announcements and primary sources closely related to the subject (places he studied/worked at). His profile on Scholar has below-average citations for a COVID-19 researcher (notice that some of those research papers were not led by him, given that his name is not always the first in the list of authors). Page created by SPA, subsequently edited by other COI accounts who repeatedly tried to remove the COI template. SparklyNights 16:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing close is IEEE Senior membership, but those are not that selective. His h-factor is low, and research grants don't count. Maybe in five years, but he is not close at the moment.

Ldm1954 (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2023 (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}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, India, and United States of America. SparklyNights 16:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professor [1] in a high-citation field, with ok citations but nothing that stands out as better than a typical assistant professor in this field. Not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and no other claim to notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page

Certainly, we should take into account his publications, his rare IEEE Senior membership, extensive community service, and his role as a director. He has garnered noteworthy recognition in smaller communities, surpassing many individuals with limited citations on their Wikipedia pages.! Rahulpatelfan (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)— Rahulpatelfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

None of these things amount to notability by any of the relevant notability standards. IEEE Fellow membership would, but senior member is well below that level. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. So, we should focus on enhancing this page, highlighting the significance of books and federal research contracts as notable achievements. It's important to establish notability within the relevant academic or professional community rather than solely relying on Ivy League associations. 2600:100C:B05B:6D4D:F87A:5D71:5842:1B08 (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think getting a research grants can ever be considered notable, unless the academic is PI of one of the big multimillion center grants. I have come across faculty at places without a PhD program who have far higher h-factor and funding. It is not all Ivy league by a long way. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I see. The lead principal investor and director typically assume the last authorship position, not the first. Is that clear to you? 2600:100C:B05B:6D4D:F87A:5D71:5842:1B08 (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me at all as practices vary widely. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Educational leader and researcher are two major things 2600:100C:B05B:6D4D:F87A:5D71:5842:1B08 (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of notes: (1) If you have a conflict of interest, whether personal or financial, you are required to declare it, by Wikipedia's terms of use. (2) It is a serious violation of Wikipedia's norms for a single person to participate in a deletion discussion with the appearance of two identities, either by using multiple logins or by combining a login with logged-out edits. Doing so deliberately could result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IEEE Senior Member [2] is an honor but it does not begin to approach the level required to establish Wikipedia notability. Check out the 2 links I've provided; probably tens of thousands of IEEE members qualify for senior membership if they apply.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The citation profile isn't strong enough to argue for WP:PROF#C1, and everything else is too minor to justify an article. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, at this point he doesnt pass WP:NPROF. He doesnt pass NPROF#1 nor any of other criteria listed there. --hroest
Comment. The citation profile appears respectable, top GS citns 181,177,94,91 but then a big drop off; the two highest are on Covid and I believe the others are also in a highly cited field, and all are very recent. Further, his GS profile conflates two different researchers -- H/HA & HR, which is muddying the issue. Agree with others that anything below IEEE fellowship does not count under WP:PROF. There are five books claimed; has anyone looked for reviews? A quick look (JSTOR,Proquest,Ebsco) didn't find any, nor any significant press coverage. I think this is probably a case of too-early career; the PhD is only in 2015. Leaning delete unless anyone can find reviews sufficient for WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found any book reviews. Moreover, Human Brain Computer Interface was published by "Lambert Academic", which is a vanity press/content mill [3]. So were Introduction to Network & Cybersecurity as well as Applied ICT - Beyond Oceans & Spaces. Even self-published books can become noteworthy, of course, but that's a big hill to climb. XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2023 (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.