Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandra Prakash Kala


 * 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈  13:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Chandra Prakash Kala

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article achieves superficial referenciness by using links to, for example, Amazon sales pages. There are no substantive sources here, and the only significant non-promotional edit I can find in the history is stubbing by. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good man, but unclear how he meets our notability guidelines for professors. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  18:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Passes WP:Prof with an h-index of 24. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Weak keep. I don't understand why his employer profile lists him as an assistant professor when his citation record  looks so strong. Anyway, I agree with Xxanthippe that he passes WP:PROF. His Google scholar profile is a bit of a mess (the top-cited entry actually merges two papers and then the second paper is listed separately but crossed out) but I think the actual numbers with this mistake fixed (213 cites for "Ethnomedicinal botany of the Apatani in the Eastern Himalayan region of India", 190 for "Developing the medicinal plants sector in northern India: challenges and opportunities", then 160, 159, 143, etc) are quite strong; also several of these papers are singly authored so there's no concern of sharing credit. The reason my keep is only weak is that if one looks a little more in-depth at the citations themselves, something looks off. E.g. among the 213 papers citing his top paper, seven of them begin "An ethnobotanical survey was", four of them begin "Plants have traditionally been used as a source of medicine", etc. Is such a high level of copying typical in this area? If so maybe we should discount the numbers somehow. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair point. There does seem to be self-citation. Thus Weak. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC).
 * Remember. notability guidelines are only indications of the type of subject who is likely to be notable - i.e. for whom reliable independent sources are likely to exist. ere, none are presented. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Take a look at the scholar link. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC).
 * Specifically this quote from it: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines ... and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline....[I]f an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we can read too much into the similarity of wording. For example three of these four papers have the same authors, and in any field of study certain phrases become pretty standard. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the above AusLondonder (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Xxanthippe and David Eppstein. I agree w/ David that the cites look a bit fishy, but if it's true that they're not real cites, it's not just WP misrepresentation, it's overall academic fraud (that would concern not just his having a WP article, but his whole research and career), and there's a limit to what AfD voters can be expected to or should adjudicate. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Notability (academics) and the arguments already used in that regard. First Light (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.