Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaushal Srivastava


 * 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. Consensus is that Srivastava is not notable by academic standards. I'm willing to draftify this if you'd like more time to find offline/non-English sources to work on the article. Just let me know. Star  Mississippi  21:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Kaushal Srivastava

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

I don't think he meets either WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR to the best of my ability to determine, although there may be sources in other languages I'm not finding. Most of the links on the page establish his existence, but not his notability. PianoDan (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for willing to discuss the deletion of this page. I have found a few more sources that I believe prove his notability as a professor, I will reference them here. Both of these sources outline that Professor Srivastava led the university's theoretical and research physics department, with an emphasis on research of theoretical solid-state physics. While in this role, Professor Srivastava developed novel theories regarding spin lattice relaxation in magnetic ion-pairs 9 diners, vibronic coupling in paramagnetic systems, and super paramagnetic relaxation 9 magnetism in nano-particles. These theories are still cited to this day.
 * Keep

This source outlines that Professor Srivastava was the first to use a particular quantum mechanic model in order to determine a particle's suitability for recording. Professor Srivastava was invited to the Symposium on Condensed Matter Physics in 2004 to speak about his findings, and to discuss the ramifications of such a discovery. This source is a book published in 1989 and distributed throughout India, the USA, and Canada outlining major advances in material physics. Research undertaken by Professor Srivastava is included and discussed in this book, namely his work on orbit lattice interaction for iron ions within insulators. The Australian Institute of Physics, in conjunction with ANU explored several pieces of groundbreaking work at their inaugural Congress, and research by Professor Srivastava was recognised at a national level for its novel discoveries (to view, source will need to be downloaded).

These sources above are not cited on the Wikipedia page, although I will add them if that's best. Further sources are available, but the ones that I have mentioned here are just a selection of what's available online. As Professor Srivastava did much of his work 20+ years ago in India, many sources aren't available in English on the internet, but in print. Most sources will be online, but there may be certain printed sources in Hindi that aren't accessible at the moment. I am happy to do further research to find these sources. From the sources I have compiled while drafting the Wikipedia page (as well as the sources that I have outlined above) I believe that Professor Srivastava meets several of the notability guidelines.

I appreciate being able to discuss this page with you all. And sorry if I haven't formatted this correctly, this is my first time going through the AfD process!

Rohagr (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Rohagr
 * The quickest way to establish notability is to cite a source that expressly shows that he has met one of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC, and say which criteria you're pointing to. For example "Source X shows that he holds the rank of 'Distinguished Professor' at notable university Y".  The sources you've posted here establish that he 1. & 2. is indeed a physics professor, 3. has published a paper, 4. has written a book, 5. presented a paper at a conference.  However, none of those are sufficient to establish notability. Ideally, you'd like to see some coverage in secondary sources outside of strictly conference papers and academic journals, but that's not mandatory if you can establish sufficient importance to the field.


 * Alternately, you could look for a source that meets one of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR, establishing his notability as a poet. In that case, you would almost certainly needed to find signficant coverage in secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * comment Thanks for these tips! Just for the sake of clarity - Professor Srivastava didn't write the book that is cited as source 4. His research was discussed at length in the book by authors that are entirely independent of Professor Srivastava, and was categorised as being a significant advance in modern physics. Just so I know I'm looking for the right things, what are the guidelines for establishing sufficient importance to the field? It seems like a fairly subjective criterion, so I was wondering whether there are a set of pointers or rules to help establish this.
 * Rohagr (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Rohagr


 * Sure - if you look down the page at WP:NACADEMIC, there's detailed discussions of each criterion. PianoDan (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. I am really not seeing the citation profile to support NPROF C1 on Scopus, which shows him with just 327 citations and h-index of 9. Being invited to speak at general symposia and conferences doesn't count towards notability. His research was discussed at length in the book by authors that are entirely independent of Professor Srivastava The only place I'm seeing his research discussed at length in this book (or rather, these proceedings of a workshop) is in the chapter he wrote, which is not by independent authors. JoelleJay (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2022 (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.