Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh Kumar (chemist)

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Kumar (chemist)

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

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

Reasonable h-index of 33, but in a field with a large number of papers. The claim to be in the top 2% of scientists doesn't stack up. Dean of a faculty only, not the university, so I don't think WP:NACADEMIC is met. This has already been draftified once, so I couldn't do so again. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Science, and India. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Chemistry is a field that does not attract a ton of citations, is a full professor with an h-index of 33 and he has at least 6 papers with 100+ citations, which is generally enough to pass WP:NPROF#1. Overall not the strongest arguments, but for me enough to pass the bar for NPROF and clearly in line with other NPROF outcomes. --hroest 21:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chemistry is one of the most cited fields? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim to be in the top 2% scientist is right according to me because of this reference PDF uploaded by 'Elsevier Data Repository' i.e., Table_1_Authors_singleyr_2021_pubs_since_1788_wopp_extracted_202209.xlsx Abhaybeniwalreengus (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this file, he appears on row #177221. His rank in column G is given as 260,797 and in column V as 208,179. How does this equate to being in the top 2% of scientists? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this and their (Abhaybeniwalreengus) comment's below as article creator, it does seem like they are writing articles with undue promotion towards subjects that would warrant further scrutiny of their articles.

Keep This Article is linked to another Wikipedia pages (at least 2) So, I think that the orphan tag should be removed from the article. This article have Internal links ,one is Khatoo, Rajasthan and another is 15 July page.He has at least 6 papers with 100+ citations and reliable Sources are provided in article so Therefore, I believe this article should be Kept. Thank you user:Abhaybeniwalreengus (Talk),5:42 am, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I do have to say that the page creator claiming the article should be kept in part because they made wikilinks to something like July 15 comes across as very strange. KoA (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep Chemistry field do not have more popularity or do not have more citations, his h index is 33 and [https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=qTdwA8IAAAAJ&hl=en he has 6 papers with 100+ citation and also have one Book published by British Publisher. Which is generally enough to pass WP:NPROF according to me it should be kept on Wikipedia. Thanks user:Dippswrite‬ (talk) 21 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dippswrite (talk • contribs) — Dippswrite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Reasonable number of moderately-highly cited papers to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Jeppiz (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Eeks past the bar for NPROF in terms of citations (albeit one of the more subjective criteria). I'm not seeing much for quality secondary sources that would really establish notability though, so even with the citation metrics, it still would be possible that this could end up in the delete pile someday. This one is pretty borderline since it's usually a red flag if there isn't much to write about in the article itself through secondary sources. KoA (talk) 16:02, 22 March 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.