Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venketa Parthasarathy

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 the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Venketa Parthasarathy

Venketa Parthasarathy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This person is not notable, he has a PhD in ChemEngineering and appears to have done nothing exceptional nor be recognized as anyone exceptional. Just an ordinary researcher who has published some papers. Smokefoot (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete a quick Google search brings up nothing to indicate notability. The only accomplishment the article lists is "ground-breaking work on chlorine-free bleaching chemistry" which while groundbreaking does not seem particularly important. -Icewedge (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A PhD is more often then not likely to be notable because their work has been reviewed in third party sources. I do not believe that the nominator performed a google search in Indian, where much of the material to assert notability likely exists. As it stands now, the primary sources are enough for me, not enough grounds to delete here. MrPrada (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

comment: 25,000 PhD's are granted each year in the US alone, and each is expected to publish work that "has been reviewed in third party sources."

• Delete. Article provides no evidence of notability. Publishing articles, presenting at conferences, and/or obtaining patents is the normal job of any researcher and does not confer notability. The least that would be required are articles about the researcher written by independent sources, as is the case, for example, for scientists who received major awards or made it into the history books. --Itub (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Just having a PhD, while a laudable achievement, is well below the notability bar for academics. And I don't think there's any need to look for sources in "Indian", which, as Mr Prada will discover if he clicks on the link he provided, is not a language. Any sources showing notability for a scientist educated in India, Norway and the USA and working in the USA would almost certainly be in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete --using the right standard. Although "Publishing articles, presenting at conferences, and/or obtaining patents is the normal job of any researcher", it is still just that which makes researchers notable. Researchers become notable from their research, and "making it into history books" is WAY beyond the Wikipedia standard of notability in any area of human endeavor. But the notability depends on how many papers, patents, etc. and how important they are: 3 papers, 1 conference paper, & 1 patent are not nearly enough./ . Similarly ""ground-breaking work on chlorine-free bleaching chemistry" would, if true, make one notable--all fields of activity are potentially notable, regardless of one's personal interests. But there is no evidence he's done anything of the sort. It takes more than one patent. DGG (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2008 (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.