Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saurav L. Chaudhari

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saurav L. Chaudhari

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:PROF, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:GNG. This is another entry from a promotional editing team we have yet to crack down on. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur with OP, this fails notability criteria, and given all the apparent socking surrounding it, I also concur that this involves a paid editing ring. Waggie (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete it == References are available — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost753699 (talk • contribs) 2019-05-01T14:13:42 (UTC)

User Ghost753699 is a sockpuppet with no other edits except to this AFD.Sandals1 (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete No evidence that he's notable as a scientist, blogger, author, or meets the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete. An undergraduate researcher for whom Google Scholar profile shows zero citations to his work. Far too soon for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, I don't see a lot of evidence that the (now exposed and blocked) sockpuppet ring behind this article was part of a paid editing scheme. It looks more likely to be the work of a single person promoting himself. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Proof that there's room in the market for more firms, perhaps at a lower price point. The customer is under-served if neophytes are doing it themselves. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no question about it. Notable undergraduate researchers are few and far between. XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails GNG, PROF. --Tataral (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Why is this not deleted yet? Obviously promotional piece about a non-notable person. Author is a confirmed sock who's now blocked. This should be a G13. -Zanhe (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2019 (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.