Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimit Sanghvi


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 05:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimit Sanghvi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I do not believe this article meets the notability threshold for Wikipedia, for academics. There are two references showing the papers the object himself has written, which seems to imply if allowed, anyone who has written an essay at a higher education or research institute could have a valid article. The award that the object has won is not notable itself. Eugene-elgato (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Favonian (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Snowball delete. Not even close to passing WP:PROF. Not only has his research not had enough time to make any impact as measured by citation counts, but as a masters' student there's little way of distinguishing his accomplishments from those of the more senior researchers he works with. And I have a very low opinion of WSEAS, the people who gave him their award: basically I think of them as a scientific vanity press, making money by having low standards for their conferences and then collecting high registration fees. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Clear Delete for above reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

1)To Eugene-elgato : Wikipedia asks that the subject be notable only, not important. If people are discusssing someone, then it makes sense to offer further information from reliable sources, presented from a neutral standpoint, or offering a balance of opinions where diverse views exist. Without the physical limitations of a printed format, Wikipedia can be a bit more liberal in determining the importance of its content. Regarding references, I have edited it and added two more references to correctly direct towards the published work. 2)To David Eppstein : Opinion about WSEAS is personal and I believe a personal opinion is not enough for the article to face deletion. I hope this is not taken into discussion. Also, academic qualifications were inserted with the consent of previous administrator (Selket). It shall be edited. The research shall have a significant impact in its (current) time, but then, I think it possess no threat to the article as it is not necessary that the current research should be a huge world demonstration. Note that till now, this research is THE only research yet produced globally. I would like to know more viewpoints regarding this.
 * Hello, I am glad that the discussion is on for consideration for this article in Wikipedia. Well these are the points I would like to discuss about.

Thank you. Jimcham17 (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's true that it has no physical limitations and certainly we have more room to put additional information. However notability still isn't clear to me even on a wider reading. And I very strongly disagree that opinion onf WSEAS is personal. It's about as objective as you can get and goes to the very root of notability. On one end would be the Nobel Prize which is highly reputable and used as a criterion in the Shanghai listing of the worlds best universities- I would suggest WSEAS is nowhere near, with little reputation.Eugene-elgato (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete It's snowing snowballs here... Let's come back in another 15 years or so. Far away from meeting any of the criteria of WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am Ashraf Khawaja Nozair, working on Rosetta Space project(COSIMA instrument), as a member of Finnish Science Team. I strongly recommend this young scientist and his aesthetic work on "Ozone Layer Generation". I support him as the only person to have done it and irrespective of the Academics, viewing neutrally, I wish to let this page exist. I would also like to suggest others to look at him under WP:CREATIVE with the following points :-

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

Thank you.86.50.66.38 (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete If I were in a cynical mood, I'd say that the last two !votes have convinced me, but seriously, it's David Eppstein's arguments that win the day. --Crusio (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete one paper does not an academic career make. Might be notable at one point but I'm not finding sufficent references to make that day today. RadioFan (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2011 (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.