Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. H. Sankhala (2nd nomination)

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. Don't worry Prakashpanwar, lots of admins have had "their" articles (but see WP:OWN) deleted at AFD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R. H. Sankhala

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

Non-notable academic, deleted before by AFD, CSD-G4 declined presumably as not a close enough paraphrase of original article. Subject does not meet any of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or, indeed, WP:GNG. Recommend WP:SALT Catfish Jim and the soapdish 06:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it if its as per the Wikipedia policies to delete it. What I know about notability is that notability of researcher is through his published works and as per my knowledge, Journals etc normally do not cite references of a research paper by a non-notable person. If these are the Wikipedia policies, delete it immediately. And if you are considering to do a discussion, firstly cite all the sources which were added by me and other people, as I fetched them with a lot of hard work. Prakashpanwar (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academic publications by themselves do not establish notability for in the sense it is used in Wikipedia. Please have a read of WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. It is possible for a researcher to have published as first author in multiple, high-profile scientific journals, such as Nature and Science and still not satisfy notability guidelines. What is required are multiple sources that profile the academic himself/herself. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:PROF #1 specifically prescribes notability on the basis of citations to one's work, regardless of any "sources that profile the academic" or where their work was published, and this has a very long precedential history here at academic's AfD. I don't know if this particular person passes on PROF#1, but will try to check. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting... can you point me to any examples? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one from yesterday. There are hundreds of such cases in the academics AfD archive. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, this is a better one from last month that was based specifically on journal citations. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, I was wondering how open to abuse this would be. If we're talking in terms of thousands of citations, I'll hold off submitting my own vanity bio for the time being... :) Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If thats so, show me some references of you being published in any journal, not specifically the Science journals. Publication in the journal is not so easy, friend. I have my researcher friend, who did his Ph.D now, but still has only 1 research paper published. Tell me where your article is cited. Prakashpanwar (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - CSD:A7. There's not even a claim to notability here, nor was there any attempt at an assertion of notability in the original article. If this is still here in 24 hours, I'll speedy it myself. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The version of WoS I have access to goes back to the 1970's and does not show any papers by this person. He was part of a multi-author 1957 paper in Biochem. J., which seems to have 13 citations according to NCBI. The article lists another paper, but Sankhala is not listed as an author here. There are a few other papers listed here, but none of this jumps out as an obvious clincher for any of WP:PROF. Given that there are no WP:RS for corresponding biographical info and no real claim to notability within the article, the case seems pretty clear-cut. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A search in the Web of Science for "Sankhala R*" (that includes some other persons, but no matter) gives 7 publications, cited 123 times in total, [[h-index]) of 2. That indicates that the bulk of the citations come from 1 article, which is indeed the case (reference 2 in the biography): cited 117 times. There are 5 authors and Sankhala is neither the first or last, but just the second one. In all, way below what we usually accept here for a highly-cited field as biophysics/biochemistry (even taking into account that this person published in the 50s and 60s. I have no objection to CSD:A7 as proposed by UtherSRG, either, except that going through AfD it will be easier to prevent this from being re-created. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur...let it run its course in AfD. This seems to be a memorial page of some kind and is likely to show up again. Agricola44 (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy delete', should have been speedied before, does not meet WP:PROF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have received an email from the biochemist's son, who has sent me with his father's biodata by email. He was also the elected member of Biochemical society and did good research. I can send it to anyone if they provide me with the email. His son is an officer with the Indian Administration, see DANICS. Prakashpanwar (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify... Membership of the Biochemical Society is by subscription and is open to anyone working in biochemistry, from undergraduate and up. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, The thing why I am stressed on this article subject is that it has a negative remark when applying for the Administratorship that your one article has been deleted. I saw this line in the biochemist's bio "I am an elected member of the above society since 1954". What I think notability is that when an article has been cited by different renowned journals, books,etc. Its not a layman thing. This is what I believe. Provide me with an email address to which I will send this scanned piece which I got from the biochemist's son. Prakashpanwar (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about the impact this might have on an RfA. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:55, 7 April 2012 (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.