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.
See
[1]. Page was deleted, draftified, and deleted (once again, 4 months ago). It was created under a different name by the same editor (
[2]). But still, per
WP:PROF, doesn't appear to have had significant impact. All (except one) of the sources are his own work. I couldn't find any secondary sources that indicated his work was so significant to merit his own article. And according to the specific criteria notes: Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. Also, citation metrics, such as having 8,600 citations is not a good indicator per
WP:PROF#Citation metrics: Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. A non-governmental organization,
ASSOCHAM, through a virtual conference gave him a grandiose honorary title, which doesn't equate to a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. As a further note, a search of the name returns possibly several people of the same name, and an assistant professor from the US comes up first.
Aintabli (
talk)
01:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Siroxo Whether the books self published or not would not matter when they have been used over 8000 times as citation by other academics. He is a scientists releasing scientific material and books. He is not a fiction writer. This is how most scientists release publications.
Hkkingg (
talk)
17:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)reply
That doesn't change the fact that you have overruled a decision by the community, which the name difference appears to camouflage. Even with
WP:GF, if you cannot keep track of recent deletions of articles you've created despite all that still being
visible on your talk page, I'm afraid that enters the realm of
WP:CIR.
Aintabli (
talk)
15:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)reply
During the last AFD discussion, I perceived a negative bias against him, as the voters seemed to doubt the scientific validity of his advocacy. For example one DELETE voter stated "Wikipedia is not LinkedIn for fringe-medicine purveyors." Consequently, I made modifications to the page content in my new submission, resulting in a significant transformation. While I acknowledge the experience of editors like @
David Eppstein, I believe it's important to maintain impartiality and objectivity. I recognize Wikipedia's policies concerning unverified science, but in this particular case, they don't apply. Therefore, I urge individuals to set aside any preconceived biases and base their votes on the fact that he possesses over 8000 academic citations and has received multiple awards, thereby meeting the criteria outlined in both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO.
Hkkingg (
talk)
17:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Disclosure: I am the page creator. Firstly the last AFD was borderline with 3 keeps and 3 deletes and at minimum should have been extended for 1-2 weeks or should have been kept as "No Consensus."
Second we had some non-policy based Delete votes like this one " Wikipedia is not LinkedIn for fringe-medicine purveyors." I also felt that most of the problem was with the way the page was written, which made people think that way.
So I have completely revised the copy. In addition, it really doesn't matter if he has enough citations, because as an Academic he meets
WP:ACADEMIC and has over 8000 citations. It just speaks for itself. He is well known as one of the experts in his field and has also won awards as follows:
If one discounts single-purpose accounts and blocked sockpuppets, the last AfD was much more convincing: 3 policy-based deletes and 3 discounted comments. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
07:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The prior AFD also had an IP voter with no history voting to Delete and in my opinion was closed prematurely. Please have a look at all these citations as well and tell me why you think they are not acceptable:
Please post a better argument per policy. This argument is not valid, The prior AFD also had an IP voter with no history voting to Delete and in my opinion was closed prematurely. Please have a look at all these citations as well and tell me why you think they are not acceptable:
@
Cortador Do not just go with the flow and post your own reasons. Please see my arguments as well and state your reasons why my arguments are not valid in your opinion. He meets WP:ANYBIO for his awards and he meets WP:ACADEMIC for having over 8000 citations. he also has several good articles that as I have listed.
Hkkingg (
talk)
16:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Hkkingg, sometimes responding to every editor can backfire. I think you've put together your best argument and don't need to counter every other editor who has a different opinion than yours. LizRead!Talk!06:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete (not sure on Salt) -- self-published books without independent reviews/assertions of importance count for very little for notability. The one McGraw Hill book seems to be not one of their main labels. Not enough articles, citations, awards to approach the WP:PROF guideline (and I'm pretty inclusionist). Articles pointed out by the main editor, such as
Whole Foods Magazine show again more self-promotion and not independent coverage. Not sure on salting, because there is a decent possibility that the company may someday be significant and this article be a redirect, but if it's this disruptive to the editing community, salting may be in order. --
Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)20:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete and salt. This is a pretty clear case of
WP:FRINGE, so
WP:PROF does not apply and the subject has to be evaluated under
WP:BIO for the purposes of notability. There is simply too little here in that regard apart from self-published sources and promotional fluff.
Nsk92 (
talk)
13:06, 18 September 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.