Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tori index

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. No policy-based rationale for retention. L Faraone 01:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tori index[edit]

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

Non-notable index. Article has one reference, in which this index was proposed. According to Google Scholar, this article has been cited exactly once. Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I found another source, [1] but two sources does not notability make. Jinkinson talk to me 16:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riq index and discussion of both of these articles at Talk:h-index. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a valuable piece of information about one of the few indices, if any, designed to account for the bias of the self-citations. The fact that NASA ADS has implemented it is a clear manifestation of its relevance. And also a blog by the American Physical Society is enough. 40BOG40 (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:40BOG40. On the Internet I found researchers posting their tori and riq in their online curriculum. I have also to say that in Wikipedia I have seen a host of other indices which does not deal with self-citations. Keeping it would be a good sign to the community that one take seriously the impact of autociting. Thus, Keep. Danguard00 (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is absolutely not the only index that corrects for self-citations: the Web of Science presents citation rates (including the h-index) both corrected and uncorrected for self-citations. Not that this matters much: what we find important or not really is not of importance here. That the index itself has been cited just once in the scientific literature says more about the fact that this has not (yet?) found any acceptance in the community. --Randykitty (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to keep it. The indices by Web of Science are not freely available and have not been implemented by NASA ADS. For me, the fact that there is only one citation to the article is not significant. There are other means to make an idea of the diffusion and influence of an idea, etc. For example, also the number of readers, downloads, etc. as those provided by NASA ADS and PLOSone itself. And, to me, the goal of tori and riq is of the highest relevance. I suggest the qualified contributors of Wikipedia to systematically add tori and riq to the articles of scientists, when available. Referee23 (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, like the other comments above, this is not a policy-based argument (see WP:ILIKEIT). I am quite certain that WP will not start including numbers of downloads and all kinds of other indexes. At this point, the only widely-accepted measures are the impact factor, number of citations for a paper, and the h-index. (BTW, unless a researcher publishes lots of papers and cites all of his previously-published ones in all of them, these figures are hard to game by self-citations). The tori and riq indexes will most certainly not be added to any biographies until they are more widely accepted in the field than the ones I just mentioned (and even mentioning someone's h-index is not uncontroversial here). That NASA ADS has implemented them is nice, but that database covers just a very small part of academia and leaves out many other fields (life sciences, social sciences, humanities, etc.). In short, up till now not a single one of the "keep" !votes is policy based, so unless you come up with a better argument, they will likely be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main claim to notability for this bibliometric is usage by the major database Astrophysics Data System. This database is undoubtedly a reliable secondary source, but at present, it is the only one. I've been unable to find a second source; an APS blog doesn't count as reliable for me. This may fall under WP:TOOSOON; not enough time has elapsed for notability to develop. This doesn't preclude the development of a bibliometrics section in the Astrophysics Data System article to discuss this and other metrics used at ADS. No prejudice to recreation when multiple in depth reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have struck the votes of User:Referee23 and User:40BOG40 as they are blocked as sockpuppets of User:Danguard00. L Faraone 01:16, 25 November 2013 (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.