Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosh Agarwal


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Kosh Agarwal

 * – ( View AfD View log )

British liver specialist with no specific notability. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: As per no suitable notability found! Burhan Ahmed  (talk • contribs) 03:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep He may have sufficient citations at Google Scholar to meet WP:ACADEMIC. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There seems to be an idea that having papers listed in G Scholar means something. It doesn't.  It just means your paper was published in any one of zillions of journals.  WP:ACADEMIC requires that your papers be highly cited.  EEng (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Melanie's statement was precisely about the number of citations, not the number of papers listed. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Phil, that's exactly right. Several of his papers were cited more than 100 times, which is impressive for a medical article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it was imprecisely about the number of citations. Instead of saying "may have sufficient" -- why not acutally look?  The citations counts go 133, 122, 25, 23, um... 15, 11, 8, 4, uh... 3...  Most of these papers have 5-7 coauthors.  Many graduate students have citation histories like this.  EEng (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - I count 2 articles with more than 100 cites. Not bad, but if that was sufficient to pass WP:ACADEMIC almost all my profs in grad school would deserve their Wiki article.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as per User:MelanieN.Hillcountries (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete If he were last author on the heavily cited papers, I would have said keep, unambiguously. He was first author, so this is not a case of his name being tacked on, but in the same vein, he was not the principal investigator. He produced two heavily cited articles during his training, but I don't see that that clearly hits the criterion of "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications". There is no bright line, but I think it falls a little short. I think the phrase "one of four" best sums up the basis for my recommendation to delete. I see signs that he is likely to hit notable, but crystal balls count for nothing. I am more than willing to revisit the issue if new material becomes available.Novangelis (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2011 (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.