Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. K. Kamboj

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R. K. Kamboj[edit]

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

Although it is easy to find many publications by the subject of this article, I am unable to find any significant coverage of this individual in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Should anyone locate and add reliable sources that verify the content of the article I will happily reconsider this nomination. J04n(talk page) 05:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 05:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 05:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 05:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (Delete Per nom. I'd taken a shot at this one and had come up empty on finding reliable sources providing signficant coverage as well. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC) (switched to abstain based on the ACADEMIC argument).[reply]
Keep per WP:ACADEMIC. Google Scholar shows that some of his publications have been cited by others hundreds of times. Article needs cleanup but the subject appears notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ACADEMIC is a good point. The only publications I see there that list hundreds of cites list far down on the author list, but I haven't done a deep study of that. Publications where he had a lead authorship start with cite counts about 40. While h-index and g-index are crude tools at best, I'll note for the record, CIDS gives 17 and 35, respectively, when self-citations and apparent false name matches are excluded. I have no idea if that's suggestive of notability within this fellow's field of study. As a result, I'm left neutral/abstaining. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep there is an existing consensus in academic related afds that a h-index > 10 makes a academic notable--Sodabottle (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute that there is such a consensus, and I encourage reading the Talk page for WP:ACADEMIC for anyone who wants a little more information on that point. In particular, this discussion mentions the problems with the index as an indicator of notability but discusses a threshold of 25, whereas a later section (with only one author, so I'm not claiming it demonstrates much) laughs at an h-index of 14. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ACADEMIC should not eclipse the core content policies No original research and Verifiability. This article is all unverifiable original research. This is a BLP with zero sources in the article and zero sources offered yet in this discussion. J04n(talk page) 06:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but the article needs massive clean up. It should probably be reduced to a stub containing only verifiable material. Here's an article where the subject is interviewed as part of a forum: ‘India may get its first novel drug by 2014’. Here's an article confirming his appointment to an executive position at Lupin Ltd.: Lupin goes all out to make up for lost chances. Pburka (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 17:06, 19 March 2011 (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.