Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh Kumar (chemist) (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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, without prejudice against re-creation should further secondary sourcing arise. Because of the other issues, it's probably best not to draftify. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Kumar (chemist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Dinesh Kumar (chemist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional page, not given any special achivement. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "top 2% of scientists" claim omits the very important qualifier that it was actually the top 2% for the subfield "Analytical Chemistry", one of 176 subfields, and that the ranking was for citations in a single year. (It's row 177221 in the "Data" sheet in Table_1_Authors_singleyr_2021_pubs_since_1788_wopp_extracted_202209.xlsx, from [1]). We don't write biographies because people had a good year. We write them to recognize influential careers. I'm inclined towards deletion right now, since nothing is actually standing out as exceptional. Yes, the article was brought to AfD recently, and that might be grounds for a procedural close, but the arguments based on policies and guidelines had some very equivocal language, e.g., I'm not seeing much for quality secondary sources that would really establish notability though, so even with the citation metrics, it still would be possible that this could end up in the delete pile someday. Honestly, a relist might have been better than a close, so I'm fine this time with bringing the page back here. It has also been PROD'ed since then [2], indicating that the consensus in favor of notability is not total. XOR'easter (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish Keep. Possible pass of WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations, although the BLP is not well written. Odd that it has been renominated for AfD so soon after the recent Keep. Is there some COI here? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    Looking through the history, there's a lot of inclusion of inappropriately sourced material and "how do you know that?" stuff, which then got cut out. And the original creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. I'd be more concerned that there was COI/UPE involved in creating the article. XOR'easter (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (more details on change below).Very weak keep, borderline neutral Just pasting my same answer as last month. Eeks past the bar for NPROF in terms of citations (albeit one of the more subjective criteria). I'm not seeing much for quality secondary sources that would really establish notability though, so even with the citation metrics, it still would be possible that this could end up in the delete pile someday. This one is pretty borderline since it's usually a red flag if there isn't much to write about in the article itself through secondary sources. KoA (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should add the caveat that citation counts are subjective and you really need a clear cut case to claim notability alone with WP:Prof#C1. This isn't one of those, but it's enough for me to say give it some time to see if anything else sorts out. With really only once source in the article that isn't independent of the subject, it's hard to claim there is consensus the subject is notable or there is sufficient secondary coverage to establish that, but there's enough to say look for more sources. If this is all it is in year's time or after folks have really tried looking (while avoiding the WP:PUFFERY that wasn't recently removed), I'd be more apt to say delete then. KoA (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There 3765 secondary sources. Citations in reputable scholarly publications are as objective as a source can be. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
If there are secondary sources actively discussing the BLP subject himself, then please list them or even add content to the article. I highly doubt there are 3765 sources doing that from what I've seen so far. Citations are not secondary sources for our purposes here. Not to mention we're not really supposed to be using Google Scholar due to it's often overestimation, but even if you do take their h-index of 33 at face value, they're still well below the average chemistry value of 81.[3] The spirit of WP:PROF is the average professor test. The citations they get may seem like a lot to some, but the more I dig into this, they don't really seem to stand out that much. That is why citation metrics are perhaps the sloppiest measure of notability where a BLP really needs additional measures of support most of the time. KoA (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it would be helpful to others, I could do my standard Scopus coauthor analysis to get a feel for the average citation profile in his subfield. JoelleJay (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be helpful, yes. I for one feel reluctant to !vote in these circumstances without it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it, however Scopus has a problem with splitting up the profiles of some Indian authors which makes it very difficult to determine whether a coauthor's citations are complete (I've manually stitched together Dr. Kumar's various profiles, but haven't done so yet for coauthors, so that might artificially inflate his relative stats). There's also the issue that Dr. Kumar publishes almost exclusively with other Indian authors, and so his profile will reflect only his impact relative to Indian researchers. As NPROF attempts to identify academics who have made outstanding contributions that are globally recognized within their specialty (and as all subjective NPROF criteria are already calibrated to Western scholarship standards), his results may not be fair--running the same comparison on someone from the US or Europe would likely raise the coauthor citation averages, and thus notability threshold, substantially. Anyway, I'll continue working on the profiles and we'll see what comes out of this. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so after looking through only like 30 entries I gave up reconstructing his coauthors' profiles since there are just way too many people with the same name to sift through (I'm looking at you, "A Sharma"). What I have so far indicates Kumar is moderately above the average for Indian researchers in his sub-subfield. Among the 80 coauthors with 20+ papers (high-publication field):
Total citations: (average: 2878, median: 1090, Kumar: 3011). Total papers: (124, 68, 189). h-index: (23, 18, 31). Top 5 papers: 1: (171, 113, 135); 2: (118, 79, 117); 3: (98, 63, 100); 4: (84, 53, 100); 5: (76, 45, 98).
It should also be noted that putting some effort into searching ~30 coauthors netted ~12 split profiles, together adding up to an extra 35 h-index points. That's non-trivial.
When I add in the most recent 20ish authors of keyword-containing (e.g. at least two of fluoride, adsorption, wastewater, aqueous extraction, remediation, degradation, biosorption, green synth, nano-, etc.) papers citing him who share at least two of their top 5 "Scopus topics" and/or >5 papers in one of his top 5 topics, and have 20+ papers:
TC: (3560, 1261). TP: (143, 80). h: (27, 21). 1: (223, 124); 2: (141, 89); 3: (114, 71); 4: (96, 59); 5: (87, 52).
Overall, I'm still not sure where he stands with respect to the subfield as a whole; perhaps looking at more of the relevant authors citing him would reveal a more obvious trend. However, I think given the allegations of copyvio below, regardless of his notability the page should probably be scrubbed and draftified until it's acceptable for mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated !vote. Considering the discussion between my initial comment and Bearian's etc. below, I am pretty firmly in the delete camp now or draftify at a minimum. This scientist does not fall into the highly-cited category required by WP:NPROF#C1. This subject's h-index is only 33, while the average for highly cited researchers in this field is around 81.[4] Keep in mind that 81 number is cited to actual published research for chemistry, not personal editor WP:OR. That's too wide of gap to claim NPROF is clearly met or that they clearly surpass the average professor in their field. If anything, it looks like they're right around the average. Since there are no other independent appropriate sources after spending some time additional time looking there are just no notability criteria met. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best, and if this person does something to became notable someday, an article can easily be started from scratch with sources. KoA (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are the top 10 listed on Google Scholar, I've bolded those that are review articles:
Top 10 citations
  1. Water desalination and challenges: The Middle East perspective: a review
  2. A critical study on efficiency of different materials for fluoride removal from aqueous media
  3. Recent progress in g-C3N4, TiO2 and ZnO based photocatalysts for dye degradation: Strategies to improve photocatalytic activity
  4. Nanoparticles and core–shell nanocomposite based new generation water remediation materials and analytical techniques: A review
  5. Adsorptive removal of fluoride from aqueous media using Citrus limonum (lemon) leaf
  6. Adsorptive removal of fluoride from water samples using Zr–Mn composite material
  7. Adsorption equilibrium, kinetics, and thermodynamic studies of fluoride adsorbed by tetrametallic oxide adsorbent
  8. Analytical methods for determination and sensing of fluoride in biotic and abiotic sources: a review
  9. Plasmonic nanoparticles and their analytical applications: A review
  10. Metal organic frameworks as electrocatalysts: Hydrogen evolution reactions and overall water splitting
To me that suggests less "does highly impactful research" and more "writes useful reviews" but I'll defer to folks that have seen more AfD's than I and have a better sense of what sort of citation levels pass muster. Ascelyn (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we do have to be careful about misrepresenting the BLP and saying it clearly passes NPROF. That wasn't the case at the AFD, that their claim to notability has solely relied on flimsy citation metrics. This is really a case where the last AfD could have been closed as keep for now, but really was no consensus on the actual notability. KoA (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It was kept in an AfD just last month. The Google Scholar profile has a h-index of 33 which is borderline for PROF-C1 in this field, which is why I'm at weak keep, but it also shows a quick rise in citations. --Mvqr (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it above, but it looks like the average h-index is actually closer to 80 for the field, which is a pretty long ways from 33 for this BLP. I'm sure there's variation around that average, but the key take home is that 33 is not a "blow everyone else out of the water" level of citations in this field needed to pull this through on citations alone. It can seem like a lot of those of us used to less cited fields though, so procedurally it makes sense to encourage people to look for other sources that establish notability for the time being since this isn't a straightforward one. KoA (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your statistic is misleading because the source that you use is for highly cited researchers. For average researchers, to whom Wikipedia applies the average professor test, Hirsch reckons that after 20 years of research, an h-index of 20 is good, 40 is outstanding, and 60 is truly exceptional. 84% of Nobel prize winners in physics, for example, had an h-index of at least 30. Hirsch deals with physics but chemistry is much the same. Just repeating over and over again that citation statistics are flimsy is going to convince nobody. If you want to change policy guidelines you should try that on a policy page, not on an Afd. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
And repeating over and over again that they have a high citation count for the field without sources is ignoring part of the problem people have being bringing up and trying to address with these AfDs. If anything, it's anonymous editors trying to disagree with actual published sources on this very topic, which isn't a thing even WP:EXPERT editors are really allowed to do. I will remind you that WP:NPROF is very clear when dealing with citation counts The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work. NPROF even makes the effort to italicize that part. As you have just indicated as well as the source, this BLP subject does not fall under highly cited. If you're going to rely on criteria 1 alone there, it's very clear that the citations need to be exceptional, not just average, and that's been the context here. If we had some decent secondary source coverage, then we could have the combination of current citations + coverage justifying notability, but that isn't this subject currently. The average professor test isn't saying average professors are notable, but instead When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished? The whole context and spirit of that guideline is that a professor stands out and falls into that highly cited category for their field.
That's why AfDs on this BLP have been so difficult because we have people knee-jerking and not actually following that part of NPROF in keep comments. I've said to give it some time to sift out sources, but this is looking more likely that the article will have to be deleted next time if we're actually following policy and guideline and those problems cannot be addressed. KoA (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have stricken my vote given the socking and copyright violation concerns.--Mvqr (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP over 3000 citations in Google scholar. He clearly meets WP:PROF. Hkkingg (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Raw citation numbers are not meaningful without a comparison to the rest of the field in which the person works, at the very least. XOR'easter (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy does not state that. That is your own interpretation. In addition, even if that is the case he could still have a lot more citations than people in his industry. 3000 is a lot and I have seen people with much less academic citations that have Wiki pages. Hkkingg (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. What I said is how it works. WP:PROF: Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others. Look through the archives of academics-and-educators AfD's for plenty of examples to see how the guideline is actually applied. Comparing to the averages for the field is absolutely commonplace. XOR'easter (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or speedy delete outright. Right now, it is a borderline WP:COPYVIO, and thus a speedy deletion, because it relies exclusively on, and copies from, a source associated with the subject, and needs to be started from scratch. It possibly could pass PROF and WP:HEY, if it is draftified and fixed up. Copyvios are a bright line for me.Bearian (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy/draftify or just delete per Bearian's argument that the page would have to be started from scratch to be acceptable anyway. I think userfication/draftification is likely to be a waste of effort here, if not actually counterproductive. XOR'easter (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article is authored by an editor who might have a COI and was banned for being a sock. As the article stands right now it has one source and I wasn't able to find a lot about him. It should be noted that just he does have a few self cites for his articles but it isn't that bad I've seen way worse. I don't believe this article passes WP:NPROF as it stands now. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a complete idiot and was looking at the wrong Indian chemist named Dinesh Kumar. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think they're notable yet, almost but not quite. TOOSOON maybe. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the nominator of the original AfD. I extensively edited the article to remove bogus claims and sparred with its author over them. My concern remains that they do not meet WP:NPROF. I believe there's ongoing socking and filed this report just now. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dinesh_Kumar_(chemist)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1155107018"