Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Himanshu Parikh

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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Himanshu Parikh

[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)

Not sufficient coverage for notability. Lot of information is there. But, I feel it is not clear why they are notable. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Architecture, India, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found many primary article and books when I ran a google search. The most reliable article which is not in the article currently but demonstrates some level of notability is in the Times UK. I also found a list in the Guardian InfiNeuro (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think these sources have sigcov which is required for notability usually. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In InfiNeuro's vote, the first source doesn't count toward notability, and I am unable to judge the Times article due to the paywall. However, the first of the two books cited as a reference in the article [1] does provide significant coverage. I am unable to judge the second book [2] due to its language, but found this bio [3] on the same site. Although this barely passes GNG, I believe that because of the subject's significant accomplishments and accolades, as well as the relevant (pre-internet) dates, further research must be conducted, especially in offline sources, to sufficiently demonstrate that the article should be deleted. Toadspike (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found two more sources. The first is much more valuable than the second [4] [5]. I am not sure if the first can be considered "independent", although the second likely can. Regardless, I still think searching offline sources is advisable. Toadspike (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge cited information into Slum networking. Not enough information on Parikh for his own article, but he did come up with the concept. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Toadspike. Angad.uday (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above and the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2022 (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.