Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jothydev Kesavadev

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. Daniel (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jothydev Kesavadev[edit]

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

Jothydev Kesavadev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Potentially notable, senior physician, but low h-index and low cite. Fails WP:NACADEMIC scope_creepTalk 20:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The awards he has received do not appear notable or even particularly competitive. Looking at his 20 most recent papers and comparing him with the 71 coauthors with 10 or more publications, I would say he does not meet NPROF C1 from citation metrics either: Total cites: average: 4452, median: 1245, Kesavadev: 356. Total pubs: avg: 130, med: 69, K: 49. h-index: avg: 21, med: 14, K: 11. Highest citation: avg: 633, med: 250, K: 46.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelleJay (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, in terms of the level of promotional content, this page is well into TNT territorry, perhaps G11. The various hyberbolic achievement claims dont jibe with the very modest (particularly for the field) h-index of 16 with the top cite of 70. Nsk92 (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: meets gng and basic, article sounds very promotional needs a clean up. as per wp:atd, if article can be edited it should be done rather then deleting it. ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TNT. Even assumung the subject is notable, the current version is unsalvageable, unless Hercules is available. Nsk92 (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Does the fellowship with the Royal College of Physicians (or any of the other fellowships listed) suffice for WP:NPROF C3? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say, depends. These are elected postions; its considered a prestigious position, but when I was doing the James Spence Medal series of articles, I noticed a lot physicians were getting deleted, even though they were FRCP or had some other listing. To become notable within the profession, to make it into the books, they had to have invented some surgical procedure, or advanced research in some way. I think probably, they're is a lot of fellows, but unless they advance the industry, they're not particularly notable. When you look at e.g. Plarr's Lives of the Fellows, and the other archive (the name escapes me), if each one of them had another obit, they would all be notable, but quite a number, don't have that. I think that is the reason for deletion. scope_creepTalk 17:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We really need to identify why there is an article, that is the core of it. scope_creepTalk 17:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what it is. scope_creepTalk 17:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while the page is a promotional eye sore, this publication might meet criteria one of WP:NACADEMIC. Other pubs are borderline. I'm unable to verify Royal * memberships( blame my mobile device if not lack of RS) Vikram 08:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately it has been only cited 8 times [1] 2nd row, which is far too low to pass the notability threshold for academics. Having looked at it over the weekend, I've came to the conclusion that he is non-notable. I suspect that there might be an article a couple of decades up the road, assuming there is a couple of obits scope_creepTalk 12:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. To quote from the explanatory notes in WP:PROF regarding WP:PROF#C1: The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. If the publication had been cited 800 times, there might have been something to talk about in terms of WP:PROF#C1, but not with just 8 citations. Nsk92 (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In some domains, papers may not be cited too many times, if it is niche. In this case what stands is the reputation of the publication. Having done some work around paper reviews, I feel #citations may not be an absolute parameter to either accept or reject WP:PROF#C1. Having said that, I dont see any other parameter to support notability and would !vote delete. Vikram 10:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at that. It is a complete double standard being applied on the Lisa Jones article, that completely breaks WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. scope_creepTalk 16:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:TNT at the least. I don't see a pass of WP:NPROF C1 here -- possibly WP:TOOSOON. I'm uncertain about the case for C3, but since the RCP fellowship is not supported by a reliable source (and I didn't succeed in finding one), I don't think this forms a good keep argument for the article. Meanwhile, there is little from the current text of the article that would go into an eventual article on the subject. I certainly don't think that we should take a no-consensus close on another article (with particularly tart comments from the closing admin about poor keep arguments) as forming any kind of precedent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Citation record doesn't support WP:PROF#C1 and the article is too heavily promotional and padded for me to tell whether there might be anything else of actual notability hidden in it. WP:TNT and WP:CSD#G11 are also relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2021 (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/Jothydev_Kesavadev&oldid=1010710535"