Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahinda Vilathgamuwa

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 keep. Not a very good article, but that can be corrected by fastidious editing. As argued by several editors, the citation counts indicate a clear meet of PROF#1. Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahinda Vilathgamuwa[edit]

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

The subject is a just a professor at a university. Not notable under WP:PROF or WP:GNG. A series of general references provided which mention the subject in passing but do not establish notability . Dan arndt (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you even check GS? I'm afraid you've got it exactly backwards. Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Comment whilst there maybe high citation counts in his Google scholar profile - none of that is demonstrated or attributed to in the article. Criteria one specifically states "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." The article does no provide any independent reliable sources showing that the subjects research has had any significant impact. Dan arndt (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are independent proof. You are describing a shortcoming of the article. The subject is conspicuously notable (see more below). Agricola44 (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete We don't need an article on every professor Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. David has already pointed-out the notability via highly-cited works, the very heart of WP:PROF c1. The GS citation list is: 469, 446, 311, 219, 219, 217, 210...for an h-index of 39. Of course, notability of an individual is independent of whether a WP article describing the individual does an adequate job of documenting this aspect. Seems that the shortcoming is in the article, not the individual. This article is certain to be kept, as the proof is conclusive. Might be good form for the nom to withdraw AfD to save other eds' valuable time. Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing notability, I'm not seeing sources and I'm not even seeing a convincing argument based on citations. If there was more content here explaining why his work was significant, I might be swayed. As it it though, three papers with over 300 cites is worthy of further study, might build into something that looks like an article, but it's not alone a pass for "Google says notable, therefore notable". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to belabor the point (since the article is certain to be kept), but it is worth explaining a subtlety that seems to be lost here. It is not "Google says notable". Rather, Google is the documentation of over 4,000 independent citations and it is the latter that says "notable". It is also worth noting that this level of impact far surpasses the rough threshold that has been established over hundreds of AfDs over the past several years. Finally, AfD is not touch-up. All we are debating here is the notability of the subject, who is notable whether the article says so or not. We should direct our collective energies into expanding the article, because it's a done-deal that the article will be retained. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
4000 citations is pretty standard fare for a full time academic. I've just run my Facebook friends list through Gooogle scholar and they split into <50 (non academics and graduates) and 4,000-8,000 for those who do publish. I'm at 200 myself and I haven't published anything for 10 years. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4,000 citations is not at all standard. The vast majority of published papers have very low (<10 citations), e.g. about half published since 1900 have never been cited. Because most academics do not publish more than 1 paper a year, citations for an average prof are pretty low. Through hundreds of AfDs, we've arrived at several rough thresholds for assess academics' notability by the impact of their work (WP:PROF criterion 1) and Vilathgamuwa far exceeds all of them, e.g. his h-index of 39 is far above the average academic value of 10 to 15, total citations of 4,000 far above the average of a few hundred, etc. Perhaps you should consider creating articles for those high-citation friends of yours. ;-) Agricola44 (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I wouldn't wish outing via WP on anyone.
Professors gain a boosted citation count because they're listed on a lot of papers they had a "supervisory" role in, also because politics often encourage political citation of a nearby academic's work. For judging notability, I'd be wary to count papers with fewer than 200 citations to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have evidence that substantial gratuitous authorship or courtesy citation have occurred in this particular case, then please throw off the veil and lay out the evidence. It could change the opinion of the "keeps" (it certainly has done so in many past AfDs with which I'm familiar.) Conversely, if you're speaking in general terms, then I would agree that both these things happen, but would submit that they are irrelevant to this case. PS: I'm sorry that you see creating a new article on a notable person as "outing" them. I guess there'd be no bios if we all had that frame of mind. Agricola44 (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NACADEMICS # 3, according to this he is a senior member of IEEE which is cited as an example at this criterion, the citation count corroborates that # 1 he is a widely cited expert in his field Kraxler (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Amended, see below. Kraxler (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Kraxler: - criteria #3 states the subject is a 'fellow' of a a major scholarly society, which is significantly different from being a member or senior member of the same institute. On the basis it clearly fails criteria #3 - It may satisfy criteria #1 but am awaiting the outcome of the preceding discussion. Dan arndt (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, he is a "senior member", one grade below "fellow". I amended ny rationale. Kraxler (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2015 (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/Mahinda_Vilathgamuwa&oldid=1169682173"