Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanket Goel

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 move to draftspace‎. It has not been conclusively shown that the subject meets WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. But perhaps more will appear in the future. If the draft is deleted in the meantime, it can always be restored. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanket Goel

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Sanket Goel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable professor that does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are self published and passing mentions. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is a dean at at major university in India (BITS Pilani) , which qualifies him for #C6. As for the IEEE Sensors Council's Distinguished Lecturer Program, the process is very selective and I believe qualifies for #C3. Further the subject has also co-authored many books on MEMS and Microfluidics which are used are coursebooks at many institutions. The subject is a Senior Member of IEEE and is an Editor of many IEEE journals. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/author/37085761553 Shashy 922 (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A dean definitely does not quality for #C6, which only applies to a person who has held thehighest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution. Only the Vice Chancellor of BITS Pilani would qualify under #C6, not one of the at least 13 deans. Being an IEEE Senior Member also does not confer notability (see the clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bin Xie (researcher) from a few weeks ago). And only editors-in-chief of major journals automatically satisfy WP:NPROF, whereas this subject seems to only have held editorial board and associate editor positions. The Distinguished Lecturer Program appears to be a temporary, part-time guest speaker program, and while it seems to have a selection process of some kind, I do not think it is anywhere near an equivalent achievement to the distinguished professor appointment that is required to satisfy #C5. MCE89 (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under #C6, the case that a dean does not qualify is predicated on an overly narrow and rigid interpretation of WP:NPROF that ignores the real influence and decision-making authority that deans possess at prestigious universities. Although the Vice Chancellor is the highest ranking administrative official at BITS Pilani, the assertion that only this post fits under #C6 ignores how academic leadership really operates. Deans at a research-intensive university are not only administrative leaders; they also significantly influence research projects, supervise faculty hiring, guarantee funding, and create academic policies. Precedents in Wikipedia itself also support this—academics like G. "Anand" Anandalingam and Archana Chatterjee, both deans at prominent universities, have been regarded as notable despite not meeting your unfair rigorous interpretation. Furthermore, despite not meeting WP:NROF to this degree of scrutiny, other Wikipedia entries including those on Tanka Bahadur Subba and K. P. S. Mahalwar—who are only visiting professors—have been judged notable. Linda Aldoory, Theodosios Alexander , Rangapriya (Priya) Kannan are some other articles which fall far below the standard notability guideline and yet have been approved by the Wikipedia community, and the subject's notability far exceeds them. These are some articles that I found within a mere 5-minute surf. Given the time I'm sure that there will be far more articles on academicians on Wikipedia that fall below your interpretation of WP:NPROF.
Also, while fellowships at the IETE and IEI may not be at the level of an IEEE fellow, they are respected honors within the Indian engineering community. Further, only a small number of researchers from around the world in the very specific field of sensor technology are chosen for the distinguished lecturer program by the IEEE sensors council, which in itself is a leading organization in sensor technology. The program can be considered for #C2.
The subject also is a part of 3 different startups which impact industries related to biomedical devices. The impact of these startups can be clearly seen through the third-party reliable sources provided in the article.
Finally, one of the most objective indicators of scholarly influence, the subject's h and i10 indexes, place him well above the standard threshold of significant academic impact. To put this into perspective, his h-index of 37 (as of March 2025) and i10-index of 154 (as of March 2025) [1] higher by significant margins than that of John Jumper, the recent Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry who has an h-index of 29 and an i-index of 40 (as of March 2025). Both indexes are widely accepted measures in the research community for measuring a researcher's impact in their domain.
The extremely high and inconsistently applied standard being suggested here is not in line with established precedent on Wikipedia. Goel meets multiple criteria under WP:NPROF, including scholarly impact (#C1), prestigious academic recognition (#C2), professional honors (#C3), academic leadership (#C6), and industrial impact (#C8). Given that Wikipedia has recognized academics with far fewer citations, fewer sources, fewer honors, and lower levels of professional influence, there is no reasonable justification for claiming that Goel is not notable. The interpretation being applied here is far stricter than what has been used in past discussions of academic notability, and excluding Goel would establish an unrealistically high bar that is inconsistent with Wikipedia’s approach to evaluating notable academics. Shashy 922 (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment being a Dean is specifically excluded from being enough for nitability. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing a pass of any of the WP:NPROF criteria. His citations are decent but don't strike me as quite enough for #C1, and I don't think participating in the Fulbright Visiting Scholar Program counts for much towards notability. Fellowships of the IETE and IEI don't appear to be the kind of selective elected memberships that would qualify for #C3, and I don't think his participation in the IEEE Sensors Council’s Distinguished Lecturer Program is at all equivalent to a "distinguished professor appointment" for the purposes of #C5. So I think it's probably WP:TOOSOON for a pass on any of the WP:NPROF criteria, and I didn't see anything else that could give much of a claim to notability. MCE89 (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It is not the strongest case. As already mentioned above, it is NPROF that applies here, and no major WP:BEFORE was done. Dean does not count. His h-factor at 37 is OK, but his highest cited paper is 824 on a different topic (and I am not certain it is the same person) and the others are at most 100. The Fellowships do count somewhat, and without them I would have voted a weak delete. I have seen far weaker cases being defended and passing AfD. Hopefully this will not descend further into contentious statements; please stay calm! Ldm1954 (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I agree that while the subject may not be the most notable academician like a Nobel Prize winner, he is far more qualified than many previous articles published on different subjects in the same category. Instead of deleting the article, I feel as per WP:BEFORE (C), the community should try and improve the article since it has outdated information with sources from 2023. When I did research about him now there were many more sources and information. Shashy 922 (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really think these fellowships can be counted towards WP:NPROF#C3 though? If you look at the information on the IETE and IEI websites, only "Distinguished Fellows" and "Honorary Fellows" of the IETE and "Honorary Life Fellows" of the IEI are selective elected positions of the type described in C3. To become a Fellow of either organisation you just need to submit an application showing that you meet the age and education requirements and have held a "position of high responsibility" (just look at the examples they provide for what would qualify as a position of high responsibility), and then pay a fee. Neither strikes me as making this persona fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor. MCE89 (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While the subject's fellowships might not strike you as qualifying for #C3, there are other articles on Wikipedia with far less notable subjects. Further, there are other criteria in WP:NPROF that the subject qualifies for, as I described in my reply above. Shashy 922 (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Otherstuff might apply to this argument. Augmented Seventh (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While it might seem that I'm pushing forward the "if that then why not this" argument, my aim over here is to bring attention to the fact that editors at Wikipedia have considered other academicians far less notable and qualified than the subject valid. Shashy 922 (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is WP:OSE and especially so when your sole focus here has been promoting Goel to the extent I had to remove your access to edit the page. Please be ware of WP:BLUDGEON Star Mississippi 14:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on his h factor and cited papers. Codonified (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning move to draft at this time, without objection to restoration to mainspace if the subject becomes unequivocally better cited through publication, or is otherwise reported on. BD2412 T 21:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sanket_Goel&oldid=1281923059"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanket Goel, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.