Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aditya Ghose


 * 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. we seem to be lacking sourcing and that is fatal to a BLP Spartaz Humbug! 04:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Aditya Ghose

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable individual lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC.  ttonyb (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems individual satisfy criteria number 1, 3, 6 in WP:ACADEMIC.110.33.124.49 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC) — 110.33.124.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails notability criteria. Also appears to have a major problem with WP:COI. The only citation is to the subject's university of employment. This article has had more than adequate time for getting it up to Wikipedia standards (if that's possible); it has had a "multiple issues" tag for two months. A PROD was recently added and then removed with no substantial improvement. Cresix (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep (changing to Weak Delete, see below) The article is spammy, but the subject may meet WP:ACADEMIC. He has quite a few citations at Google Scholar. However, the article itself does not establish notability. Maybe it could be given a little time and direction to try to establish proper sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Regarding "a little more time", the article has been tagged as having multiple problems for over two months. The creator has been made aware of this several times, including a PROD (which was removed by an anon likely to be the same editor as creator), and now including this AfD. If someone can bring this article up to standards, it can always be recreated. Cresix (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article could indeed be improved in many ways. There is much additional information to provide, and some direction on the matter would be very welcome. My previous edits to add content have been undone by other users on the grounds that said content violates copyrighted material on other websites (particularly the university the subject is associated with). I am not sure if this is a correct application of copyright guidelines. How can information on the professional record of an individual be copyrighted by anyone? This would appear to be a game one can never win - on the one hand, anything that one may say about the subject has probably appeared somewhere else (hence a "copyright violation" for some), and on the other hand every claim must be substantiated by external sources. Some guidance on this would be very useful.Vickiewang (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at the article myself, to see if I could bring it up to notability. I don't know what your earlier issues were with allegations of copyvio. But the easiest way to avoid a copyright violation is simply to reword the things you are putting into the article - to make sure they are not word-for-word the same as the source. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Please note that a copyvio does not have to be a word-for-word copy of the original text. If the text has only a slight reformulation of the original it could still be considered a violation.   ttonyb  (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Regarding Vickiewang's comment "How can information on the professional record of an individual be copyrighted by anyone?", the answer is simple. The university owns the copyright to the entire website. Claiming that such a copyright is a "no win" situation is a meaningless argument. If the subject's notability can only be established by the university's website, then the subject is not notable. 71.52.140.113 (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm changing my opinion to Weak delete. I looked over his professional qualifications and searched for references, to see if I could improve this article. I came to the conclusion he probably does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. He publishes a lot, but it doesn't appear that his publications or leadership activities have had a major impact on his field. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems many saying only references to subjects univ. page. I count 6 references to other sources. More notable from most Australian academic articles.110.33.112.232 (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC) — 110.33.112.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - You're wrong about that. There is only one citation in the article itself, and that's a link to the university. There are links in the "External links" section; those are not sources. Cresix (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Question - I would like to ask anon 110.33.112.232 if he/she has a registered username who has contributed to this article, or if he/she is the same user as anon 110.33.124.49 above? That's not an accusation, just an inquiry. The anon's IP is similar to one that edited the article and anon 110.33.124.49 who added to this discussion above, and is in a similar location with an identical ISP. I want to be sure there is no votestacking (although it certainly could be unintentional if it is). Thanks. Cresix (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Update - Thanks MelanieN and Cresix for guidance on the copyright issue, and citations/references. I have significantly updated the article in the light of these. There is much more to add, but would appreciate some guidance on whether this is the sort of material you would be looking for re improvements.Vickiewang (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice try, Vickie, but actually no. You have provided links to some of the articles he has written, but that's not what we are really looking for here. We are looking for evidence that he is WP:NOTABLE, not merely that he has written articles. If you read WP:ACADEMIC it will give you an idea of what is needed to establish that the person doesn't just exist or work in the field, but that they really make a difference in that field. Examples would be if lots of other people in his field have cited his work (we measure that at Google Scholar among other places), if he has won significant prizes or other recognition, etc. You may have noticed that I recently edited and improved the other article you created, because I felt the evidence showed that person actually is "notable". But I don't think Aditya meets Wikipedia's criteria at this time - and if he doesn't, no amount of rewriting will help. --MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2010 (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.