Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheman Shaik


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Cheman Shaik

 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The BLP claims to be of a computer scientist, inventor, and an author. I can't find anything strong enough to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Quite low h-index of 5 on google scholar. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

oppose/keep The subject is primarily a computer scientist and inventor with 6 patented technologies with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as follows:

1. Absolute public key cryptographic system and method surviving private-key compromise with other advantages

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22Absolute+Public+Key+Cryptography%22&OS=

2. Password self encryption method and system and encryption by keys generated from personal secret information

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/8023647

3. Codeless dynamic websites including general facilities

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7770122

4. Dynamic Language Text Generation http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=24&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7721222&OS=7721222&RS=7721222

5. 3d Mouse For Computers https://uspto.report/patent/app/20200089339

6. Defeating solution to phishing attacks through counter challenge authentication

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=10,880,331&OS=10,880,331&RS=10,880,331

The author profile may not be that strong as per Google Scholar score, I completely agree, but as an inventor Wikipedia should consider the article as patents are granted after due assessment by the USPTO. Regarding general notability, the subject has been highlighted by the leading publications of India and Arab.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-info-tech/new-data-encryption-technique/article1750219.ece http://www.arabnews.com/node/290802

Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Hi Phil Bridger, his patents have been tested in court too. Here are the facts and references:
 * Delete. Patents are meaningless. Anyone can register a patent, but it's only if it's tested in court that it can be found to be an original, enforceable, idea. And it's only if reliable sources report on that that it can show notability. Computer science has one of the highest citation rates of any field, at least on Google Scholar, but this computer scientist has hardly any citations to his work. As the claim has been made that the article subject has notability in an academic field I will put it on the relevant deletion list. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

*Patent 8023647

Here is the list of litigants for patent infringement case (all cases closed): References:
 * Gucci America, Inc.
 * VMWare, Inc.
 * Hewlett-Parkard Co.
 * Foxconn Technology Group
 * THG Energy Solutions, LLC
 * Siemens Corp.
 * Cisco Systems, Inc.
 * Raytheon Company
 * Lockheed Martin Corporation
 * Chipotle Mexican Grill
 * AT&T, Inc.
 * Texas Freight Services, In
 * iReverse Home Loans, LLC
 * Cashstar, Inc.
 * True Media, LLC
 * Startups.co, LLC
 * Mainstream Technologies, Inc.
 * NC Financial Solutions, LLC
 * Verizon Communications
 * The Rocket Science Group, LLC d/b/a MailChimp
 * Edmunds.com, Inc.
 * Marriott International, Inc.
 * Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.

https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2019-00498 https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/8023647 (under Related Cases, check PTAB (2) and Litigation (23) *Patent 7721222 Litigants in the patent infringement case were: All cases closed. Reference: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/UniversalCipherLLCvTargetCorporationDocketNo219cv00163EDTexMay072/1?1614374019
 * Walmart
 * Target

Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The above patent has received 45 citations from 30 assignees including technology companies like Sony, IBM, Microsoft, and Google. Don't you think they establish his notability along with the coverage on leading newspapers like below: ? Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Authoring patents is not a claim of notability (they can only lead to notability if they gain significant outside attention, not in evidence here) and we have nothing else. He has a few publications on Google scholar but with an h-index of 1 and total citation count of 3, so no chance of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG Dexxtrall (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Being granted patents doesn't imply notability, and as argued above, there's no chance of WP:PROF. The sources provided above are a puff piece and a passing mention, not enough for the GNG. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete h-index of 1, clearly fails WP:PROF, everything said for the patents so no WP:GNG given. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One correction here CommanderWaterford David Eppstein, the h-index on Google Scholar is 5 not 1 with 214 citations. In addition, on Microsoft Academics, the number of citations are 234.
 * The significance of the patent No 7,721,222 that helps with non-English text generation can be understood from the fact that there is a growing base of non-English computer, or phone users who prefer to engage with their computer or mobile application using Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian, That, Lao, etc. They do internet searching, authentication, email, chat, wireless messaging, document preparation, online advertisement creation, form filling in e-commerce etc., in non-English languages.
 * The patent 8023647 has 127 Patent citations, 21 Non-patent citations
 * As far as GNG is concerned, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) admits that scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. The subject has cryptography and other niche-specific articles on Microsoft Academic and Google Scholar and individual scientific journals like:
 * International Journal of Computer Science, Engineering and Application (AJCSEA): http://airccse.org/journal/ijcsea/current2020.html
 * International Journal on Cryptography and Information Security (IJCIS): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3767403
 * International Journal of Network Security and Its Applications (IJNSA): http://airccse.org/journal/jnsa21_current.html
 * Computer Science & Engineering: An International Journal (CSEIJ): http://airccse.org/journal/cseij/vol11.html
 * http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-info-tech/new-data-encryption-technique/article1750219.ece
 * http://www.arabnews.com/node/290802
 * Patents are not scholarly publications and do not count towards metrics based on scholarly publications (WP:PROF). They are also explicitly listed as not counting towards WP:PROF, academic impact in the outside world. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein thanks for the attention. Even we ignore the scholarly publications, is there no importance of the inventions? Citations of the patents are also an approval of the importance of the inventions. Don't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdomwiki 40 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 'importance' is subjective. Inclusion in Wikipedia are guided by it's nobility criteria not how we view subject's importance. RationalPuff (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi RationalPuff, if 'importance' is subjective, then members should reconsider the deletion nomination. Here are the usability or impact of the patents: references: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2019/1/3/universal-cipher-formerly-cumberland-systems-patent-challenged-as-likely-invalid https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/8023647
 * Patent 8,023,647 or its encryption technique is used by over 20 companies including Verizon, AT&T, JP Morgan, and Lockheed Martin.

Patent 7721222 or its Dynamic language text generation system and method has been used with phone and tablet devices. reference: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/walmart-target-sued-over-text-generation-tech-patent

Patent 7,721,222 has been cited by leading tech firms like Sony, IBM, Microsoft, and Google. Patent 8023647 has been used as citations by Apple Inc., Microsoft, Oracle and other significant technology firms.Who is citing the patent is more important than how many have used it as a citation.Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Requesting members to review the notability evidences shared on this page. I have improved the article also. Hope it is better now. Despite all, if you think deletion is the only way left, please respond to my comments. Waiting for your response.Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Thank you User:GreenC what's your thought on citations from the following newspapers-based that are known for quality journalism with unbiased editorial practices: Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - as has already been pointed out, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment to clarify how Wikipedia works. We consider something important (notable) when other independent, reliable, secondary sources discuss a subject. You link to a lot of patents, but those are primary sources that are not independent of the subject - they tell us nothing about notability. Rather, we need to see magazine, newspapers and books that discuss the person. Those sources need to be independent (ie. not paid for or connected to the subject in some way). Reliable (ie. not self-published and known for editorial control). In-depth (not minor or trivial mentions). Multiple sources. Then we can say, yes, this person is notable because other people have decided independently to write about them. --  Green  C  19:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-info-tech/new-data-encryption-technique/article1750219.ece
 * http://www.arabnews.com/node/290802
 * https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/walmart-target-sued-over-text-generation-tech-patent

Hi User:GreenC, XOR&#39;easter, RationalPuff,  Onel 5969 , David Eppstein, TT me</i>, CommanderWaterford, improvements to the page regarding WP:GNG notability done based on citations from independent secondary sources in the print media in multiple languages:


 * Al, AALEM (Arabic, Monthly Magazine), February, 2007, Tenth Year, No, 94, Muharram 1428 H

References: https://archive.org/details/arabic-al-aalem-magazine-feb-2007-cover-page/Arabic%20Magazine%20Cover%20Page.jpg


 * Arab News (English, Daily Newspaper) - 2006-08-27

Reference: https://archive.org/details/arab-news-invention-by-indian-can-help-local-business-save-billions/NewsDetails_Invention%20by%20Indian%20can%20save%20businesses%20save%20billions.jpg
 * Eenadu (Telugu, Daily Newspaper) 2012-07-27: https://archive.org/details/eenadu-paper-clip-cheman-shaik_202102

Telulgu to English Translation: https://ia601502.us.archive.org/21/items/eenadu-paper-clip-cheman-shaik/Eenadu%20Paperclip%20Tamil%20to%20English%20Translation.pdf Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * When you are making claims about scientific research/discoveries/invention, tabloids coverage rarely hold water. Do you have any technical/scientific/technological secondary publication that are talking about the subject? RationalPuff (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi RationalPuff, this book places Absolute Public Key Cryptography, one of the inventions, as one of the key crypto techniques. It's already there with ISBN number under Publications section: https://www.routledge.com/Handbook-of-Surveillance-Technologies/Petersen/p/book/9781439873151 Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Hi Phil Bridger, please check this one. https://archive.org/details/handbook-of-surveillance-technologies-absolute-public-key-cryptography/page/n1/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdomwiki 40 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Phil Bridger, the author has mentioned the U.S. Patent #708882, I'm reading your patent troll thanks for sharing. Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That book does not say anything about this technique being "key", but just mentions it as one of the techniques for which patents have been taken out. It doesn't even mention Cheman Shaik, the subject of this article. Sorry, but you are wasting your time arguing here in the light of the lack of citations to the subject's scholarly work. In general, for a computer scientist, we require many thousands of citations, not less than a handful. Why are you so fixated on this article, given the subject's obvious lack of notability? It is very difficult to avoid thinking that you have a conflict of interest here, and that you have been paid to produce this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I checked the same thing (hosted at the Google Books site) before I made my last comment. All that link does is to confirm that this book doesn't even mention Cheman Shaik. All that you are doing with your interventions here is to make Shaik look more and more like a patent troll. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are scraping the barrel and wasting everyone's time here. You need reliable and significant coverage that talks about the subject not about the things the subject might have been associated with. It's not Wikipedia's job to fill the blanks. Moreover, with a few obscure citations this subject is not even close to the nobility threshold. RationalPuff (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that this man is probably both important enough and notable enough to have an article. My problem, and I think the problem with searches concerning WP:GNG and WP:Inventor (See Notability (people)), is that I don't speak a lot of the relevant languages.  Indeed, that is a problem of Systemic bias in Wikipedia.  I am not criticizing anyone for that; it's a fact.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * He works in the US. If there is relevant local coverage it would be in English. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Which disregards the Arabic and Telugu references that already exist in the article. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The references in the article are claims in newspapers that he has invented something, which newspapers are notorious for believing on the basis of a press release with no support from academic sources. It's pretty obvious from reading the patents that they only consist of gross generalities - something that patent trolls do. I have been accused before of being a dyed-in-the-wool inclusionist, but can see no reason why we should include an article about this person. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not accusing anybody of anything. And you could very well be right.  I haven't taken a position. Thanks for your input. OTOH, reasonable minds may differ on the conclusion.  YMMV.  Cheers.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.