Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhinav Ajith

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. Tone 17:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav Ajith

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Abhinav Ajith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Very recent graduate (completed undergrad degree in 2020), and a single published academic paper. No significant independant coverage that I could see. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly does not meet WP:NPROF, and as far as I could tell, no other notability criteria apply. Rather than WP:TOOSOON, I think it would be more along WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 22:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, far WP:TOOSOON. It is very rare to be notable for academic accomplishments while still a student, and the level of accomplishment needed for this is very high (multiple stories in well-known and non-local media might be good enough; publishing an uncited research paper is definitely insufficient). This looks more like an excuse to publicize a cv than an encyclopedia article. No evidence of passing any notability criterion, particularly not WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. And, totally agree with Kj cheetham, amd David Eppstein. I think, instead of WP:TOOSOON, entities like him should be judged as per WP:NEVER (a suggestive/proposed guideline). -Hatchens (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not close to being notable.--Hippeus (talk) 11:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, could have been speedy A7, not notable. --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 16:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has been tagged for A7 before, though looking more closely it was the page creator who contested that. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Far from notable, and Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Note enough cites here or published works, but continuing at this pace, I'm sure there will be at some stage. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Certainly not enough here to pass WP:PROF or WP:BIO. A borderline G11 case. Nsk92 (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Fails WP:ANYBIO,WP:GNG -- Padavalam🌂  ►  18:37, 23 September 2020 (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.