Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashok Vaidya

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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Vaidya

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

The person in question is a research director at Kasturba Health society. A search on him reveals two biographical profiles ([1],[2]). One seems to be self written and other written by a former student. He has no significant publications to his name. Nor do any news reports show up regarding his work or the claims. (not to be confused with Ashok Vaidya, vada pav vendor). Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is notable in my opinion as he has coined the terms like 'Reverse Pharmacology'. I tried to make edits on the article of Reverse Pharmacology also but they are saying that it has a different meaning so it is disputable. He is the only person I know who has done this amount of substantial contribution in the research of Ayurveda. It is true that he is a research director at Kasturba Health Society, Mumbai. I am delighted to know that a search on him reveals two biographical profiles. As I was aware of only one profile. This profile I know. Thanks a lot for sharing this very important profile. This second profile is new to me and I am happy that you have shared a profile / link which was not known to me. Is this profile present in the main article itself? If no, may I request you to kindly give the link of this reference in the article? I will do it if I get time myself but in the meanwhile if you can get time, it is a request to add that particular link in the article. Thank you again for sharing a very important link.-- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a 5-year-old stub. There has been plenty of time to turn it into an article, yet it's still a stub. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:IMPATIENT Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 17 in a highly cited field is not enough for WP:Prof. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete not enough academic impact to pass notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If one will see the concept of 'Reverse Pharmacology', which is such a revolutionary concept in the filed of herbal medicine, we will understand importance of this person. Reverse pharmacology means finding the active ingredients from the drugs which are already in use without testing. Meaning these are the drugs for which animal testing / preclinical studies are not done and they are already in use. Can we understand its meaning? It means that these drugs are dangerous as they can damage any organ of anyone anytime and it can also create any unknown adverse reactions. But no one ready to leave those drugs including governments. What is better way to solve this problem in your opinion? Dr. Vaidya came with this concept of reverse pharmacology which is the best solution in this scenario. I would like some person who knows pharmacology decide about this. I will request some people who are experts in this field to comment here. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bluerasberry, may I request you to kindly comment here? -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Doc James, may I request you to kindly comment here? -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first ref is written by the person not about the person. Do they have significant media coverage? This ref also does not mention their name[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional and strange; fails GNG and PROF. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and as noted above h-index is low to pass WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How much h index is considered notable? May I know if there are any guidelines for the same? Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Typically we expect to see an existing biography cited. Wikipedia should not publish anyone's first biography; instead Wikipedia should be summarizing the biography or profiles written by others. Right now, I do not see any biography or profile in the citations.

There are some exceptions, like for example sometimes publications report that a person has received awards but do not publish their biography or if the person is highly cited. At WP:PROF there is some discussion of what this means. There is not a particular line or text, but instead, someone who wants to argue that a person is highly cited should show some of their papers, give information about how they are cited, and say how that amount of citations compare with other researchers in that field. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks a lot for your valuable guidance Doc James and Bluerasberry. I will make modifications accordingly. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2017 (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.