Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhineet 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 delete. Speedy deletion as a hoax - or WP:SNOW deletion, if you prefer. JBW (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Abhineet Maini

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

Previously rejected at AfC, now copied and pasted to mainspace by the same user. Article claims that he was elected to National Academy of Sciences, India, which would be an automatic pass of WP:NACADEMIC, but I can't find any reliable sources for this. I don't see how he meets any of the other criteria for inclusion. Article is cited entirely to his own work or to puff pieces on unreliable websites like Medium, where content creators can upload their own articles without anyone doing any fact checking. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science,  and Punjab.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Source analysis - clearly fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zero on GS. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC).
 * Delete. Did a search of my own and found no sources not listed above or in the article. (Aside from one dead link) Fails GNG Carpimaps (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't see how meets WP:GNG, WP:NPROF, or WP:NAUTHOR. It's WP:TOOSOON at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The Source Analysis done by Spiderone appears to be faulty in numerous areas. They haven't done the fact checking for themselves. If they're subscribed to the Journal Nature, they should see why the Medium Article and The Substack Article are reliable sources containing true information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesirrrrr (talk • contribs) 17:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Yesirrrrr has made no edits except to this page.
 * Yesirrrrr has twice attempted to disrupt this discussion, first by changing another editor's post to misrepresent what that editor had said, and then by blanking the page. JBW (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * CU-confirmed sock of the article creator, see Sockpuppet investigations/Neiltyson12. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete questionable sources, probably WP:TOOSOON. TheManInTheBlackHat   (Talk)  18:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep the subject made significant headlines recently. They were a subject to be talked about throughout the Scientific Community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fffrrrrr (talk • contribs) 18:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Article contains questionable but true sources. I have personally looked into the matter, and have found that the sources do contain true information and can be relied upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyitsmelesdoit (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep the subject only needs to add one citation to show that they're a part of the National Academy of Sciences, India. Even if they can't do that, they still have won a National Honor, which checks off the notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceguyswohoo (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete absolutely, definitely, beyond doubt. NPROF is generous, but this is taking the mickey. Subject has, according to Google scholar, three publications of which two are in a journal on Beall's list that's so appalling it's almost funny (iJRASET) and the other in a journal that's barely better. As a type-specimen of wildly-optimistic self-promotion, the subject certainly stands out of the crowd. As a scientist, less so. Elemimele (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments on accuracy of article content: As says above, the article states that Abhineet Maini is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Like Spiderone, I too have searched, and failed to find any confirmation of that. It is inconceivable that it would not be possible to find any confirmation if it were true. The article gives two awards which it says he has received. Again, I can find no confirmation, which would be highly improbable if  the claims were true. It is also difficult to imagine why an award which exists for the specific purpose of honouring Ghanaian people would be given to a person who is Indian by birth and American by residence and place of work. To be totally blunt about it, the creator of the article was every bit as dishonest when he created this self-promotional vanity article as he has been in trying to disrupt this deletion discussion by several different means. (Vote-stacking by sockpuppetry, falsifying another editor's post in the discussion, blanking the discussion, removing the AfD notice from the article.) JBW (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's tempting to leave something up as a monument to the subject's promotionalism and dishonesty, but the source analysis is clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I read through this AFD and it wasn't until I went to the article that I saw that this subject has accomplished all of these academic feats, gone to all of these prestigious universities, had these appointments, worked on high level research projects and he is only 16 years old. I don't see how that is possible. That makes me think this article is wandering into HOAX territory. In the Draft world, where I spend much of my time, I come across articles like this all of the time, drafts about teenagers (12-16) who have amazing accomplishments, all without any confirmation at all but maybe a very local paper saying that they are a smart kid. It can go beyond embellishment into fantasy land. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed with the effort this person has gone through to get their article on Wikipedia. They've created (or at least worked with people to create) articles on free blog hosts, published papers on known predatory journals, created accounts on academia.edu, and set up a website on SquareSpace. This is not your average promotional article. TheManInTheBlackHat   (Talk)  17:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Until I read 's comment, I hadn't noticed his age, but yes, Liz, he is 16. That prompted me to check further, and I found several other interesting facts, which combine together to convince me that this is not only a self-promotional vanity article, as I said above, but a self-promotional vanity hoax article. There is no need to let this crap stay on the publicly visible encyclopaedia for another 6 days while we discuss it: I am going to speedily delete it as a hoax. JBW (talk) 17:51, 3 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.