Talk:Kawal Rhode

Kawal Rhode Rejection

 * , I read your comments on rejecting this article, "Subject fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Stuff the Subject wrote doesn't count for notability. Websites from the Subject's employer don't count. Most people are never notable and those that become notable aren't written about until after they die."

Criteria 1: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by reliable independent sources."

-This subject is a full professor, has many peer-reviewed publications in high-impact journals that appear to be well cited.

-"Websites from the subject's employer don't count." - Why not, are they not reliable, or are they not independent?

-"Stuff the subject wrote doesn't count for notability." - Why not?

-"Most people are never notable, and those that become notable aren't written about until after they die." - Where does Wikipedia say that?

Criteria 4: "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education."

-The Subject of the article teaches courses at institution of higher education and has contributed to many book chapters.

It is not clear why the Subject does not meet the "WP:ACADEMIC" criteria 1 and 4? I am looking forward to hearing from you for your suggestions.

Earthianyogi (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think writing and teaching are significant impacts on a field. We need an independent source that says the subject made a significant impact; we don't deduce impact based upon inclusionist ideas. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , Why does teaching and writing are not significant impacts - What else is there about higher education that is worth an impact then? If not, what is considered significant, a similar example is also provided in the definition? This notability page read, "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria. The merits of an article on the academic will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable." The person meets the first criteria, so the article should be accepted based on it, as one of the criteria is met. Earthianyogi (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't decide for ourselves what is or is not significant. We have to find sources that say so. What you're doing is saying that a person wrote a bunch and you decide that it was a significant contribution. It's not for us to decide. We need sources to say so. If independent sources don't say so, then it wasn't significant. Wikipedia says what the sources tell us. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that sources have to say so. He has many high impact papers with 200/300 citations by independent sources for each article, which is significant and notable. What else is needed? By the way, WP: BIO states, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."" Earthianyogi (talk)
 * Wikipedia hasn't determined if 300 is high impact. We don't have objective numbers. Maybe that's a lot; maybe it's not. Maybe it varies by field. I don't know. Ultimately, you think the subject is notable and you refuse to admit that N:PROF doesn't support your claim. If you keep bothering me by insisting that you can twist criteria to mean what you want, more editors like me will ignore drafts like these and editors like you that won't take "no" for an answer. Do not ping me again. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:PROF reads, "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account. "

Other discussions are at:

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Draft_talk%3AKawal_Rhode

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Earthianyogi

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Quantifiable_metric_for_WP:NACADEMIC

Earthianyogi (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Moved Teahouse discussion for Draft talk:Kawal Rhode
Hello again, An article I wrote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Kawal_Rhode) was rejected which reason that "Subject fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Stuff the subject wrote doesn't count for notability. Websites from the subject's employer don't count. Most people are never notable, and those that become notable aren't written about until after they die."

When I tried to discuss with the reviewer and mentioned the that the points mentioned in the criteria are met as the Subject has published in Lancet journal with 200/300 independent citations, the reviewer got annoyed and asked me not to contact him again as I am not willing to take a "no" for it.

I also started another discussion on another page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Quantifiable_metric_for_WP:NACADEMIC, where we had some misunderstanding as he assumed that I have a COI with the subject, which I do not. The reviewer does not believe professors are worth notable, so I feel that he may be a nit biased?

WP:Prof also says, "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." I check this https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Kawal+Rhode and got 1,105 results for this Subjejct. Therefore, on what basis should I accept that criteria 1 is not satisfied? I am not sure why should I take no for it, when it seems that the subject meets the notability criteria? Earthianyogi (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the reviewer, who was more than patient in trying to explain to you that the metrics by which an academic career is measured (journal articles, grants, patents, books) have littel-to-nothing to do with how notability is determined for Wikipedia. What counts is what other people have written about the person, high profile awards and honors, and so on. A description of a person's accomplishments on the website of the university they work at can be used as a reference to support factual statements, but contributes nothing to notability. David notMD (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If you also agree, then may be I am missing something. I thought that criteria-1 was my best bet of showing that person has a number of citations on his published work. How is the criteria-1 satisfied then for an academic and how can I understand it in a better way (as I though I was following the criteria)? Earthianyogi (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

not citations of his published work. "Reliable independent sources" means that people have been publishing about him. David notMD (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh! so citations are not important, I misunderstood that as the main criteria. What you mean is that the independent sources like newspaper or webpage, etc, should talk about the person, not his work! Earthianyogi (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Selected publications (journal articles, books...) can be listed, but ideally need at least three publications about him - at length - not just name-mentions. David notMD (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

But, what is the primary criteria, "elected publications (journal articles, books...)" or "at least three publications about him - at length - not just name-mentions" - The former criteria for this subject is met, but not the latter, and therefore, it is concluded that the subject is not notable - Am I correct? On the contrary WP:PROF reads, "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account. ". - So we need a consensus on how many citation are acceptable for notability? Earthianyogi (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Academics with numerous publications that are widely cited meet WP:PROF. Rhode's h-index is 41 per Google Scholar and 36 in Scopus. TJMSmith (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)