Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhi Maini


 * 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 speedy delete, for multiple reasons: re-creation of an article deleted at Articles for deletion/Abhineet Maini, created by a block-evading editor: Sockpuppet investigations/Neiltyson12/Archive, and a hoax. JBW (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Abhi Maini

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject does not appear to be notable as all sources are self-published and promotional ElKevbo (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note also that the editor who created the article appears to have a conflict of interest based on what they have written on their User page. ElKevbo (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Although he is the member of The National Academy of Science India and also I can see his research publications, but it needs reliable sources. The Maini Research Foundation page was also written by the same creator and deleted under WP:G11. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Hello there! I'm the creator of this article. I have added additional external and reliable references for you to take a look at. The subject is a member of the Prestigious National Academy of Sciences, India, which checks off the notability criteria for academics. JeffKrum1 (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC).
 * That source, like all of the other sources in the article, are not reliable. To the contrary, they're all clearly self-published sources written solely to promote this person. I'm not sure if there are some cultural differences to which I am not attuned, overzealousness that simply rubs me the wrong way, or outright deception but the available evidence makes it clear to me that this person doesn't meet our notability standards. ElKevbo (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: Please feel free to make changes to the article as necessary. I am a little new to the encyclopedia format :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffKrum1 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject clearly passes the notability criteria for academics, as they are an elected representative of The National Academy of Sciences, India. The nominating editor seems to have something against the subject, based off of their previous comment on this discussion page. Sources seem reliable.Williamrcup (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source supporting that claim. And lay off the personal attacks. ElKevbo (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - in terms of notability WP:NACADEMIC states if the person "has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society", they are notable, not necessarily any elected scientific position - but regardless, even giving benefit of the doubt that the position here is indeed notable, the notability/position must be substantiated by reliable sources. So - I took a look at the sources. The first group of sources are all posts on a site called vocal.media, a site where anyone can make an account and make posts called 'stories', by this account, posting only about the individual in question, all in only the last month. The second sources come from what seems to be a custom-made website that specifically only has 'posts' about the individual in question again. I don't see any other secondary sources about the individual's positions other than those two websites - and researching for more sources has yielded nothing for me, and so since these are not journalistic sources, I would not call them reliable. So if it isn't clear already, this seems very much to be a faked article and a WP:HOAX. I'd also note that both keep votes seem to be involved in the creation of the article. Meszzy2  (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that google scholar returns no matches for his name Meszzy2  (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete smells of promotion. I can't find any sourcing to confirm this person has done anything suggested. Oaktree b (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * All of Google gives me NINE hits, some of which are for a female/different person than this individual. There is nothing in GScholar or Jstor. Oaktree b (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2023 (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.