Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Dattani


 * 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. Doing us all a favor. Missvain (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Nike Dattani

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Clear conflict of interest as DrUniverse is editing their own page, adding affiliations which are incorrect with the intention of making Wikipedia serve as a source of false information, and to be honest this person isn't particularly noteworthy. Further, This page has actually been deleted before for the same general reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nikesh_S._Dattani TheLawGiverOfDFT (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC) — TheLawGiverOfDFT (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Speedy Delete: We discussed 4 papers under C1 and any opposition was primarily based on the number of citations (one user also had concerns about attribution). I argued/argue that:
 * (1) was a paper with 100+ GS citations in a very low-citation area (spectroscopy of molecules with only 2 atoms – fundamental but not exciting),
 * (2) was a paper on integer factorization which had 55 GS citations but broke a record and got a lot of news coverage    ,
 * (3) was a paper on quantum dynamics which has almost 100 GS citations, but it's value should not be measured by the number of citations because the paper's purpose was to state that a certain hot (at the time) topic was not as interesting as originally claimed by others. If it worked, people would stop publishing on that specific topic and there would be no citations. The paper got citations since it also introduced a faster implementation of an algorithm, but in the long-run the value should be assessed based on things other than citations (which I admit can be harder to convince people with).
 * (4) was a paper in computational biology with only 28 GS citations but it introduced a method that was later used in a paper with 100+ citations/year since it connected the origin of COVID to bats in early 2020.
 * On the surface, none of (1)-(4) seem exceptionally highly cited (except perhaps the first one), but they haven't been around for too long either and some of them are valuable for reasons that citations won't show. Furthermore, I have never seen one person have 4 borderline C1 cases made in 4 completely different fields, within such a short time, and at such a young age. The discussion only fortified my opinion about notability.
 * My suggestion to use C2 seems to have been an error because it's actually used pretty much only for later-career awards. Dr. Universe (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The deletion was proposed by an SPA created for the sole purpose so far of deleting the article, and made several claims (attacks) without proof:
 * - "Clear conflict of interest as DrUniverse is editing their own page" (Unproven and seemingly retracted later in the discussion)
 * - "adding affiliations which are incorrect" (No answer given when asked which affiliations)
 * - "with the intention of making Wikipedia serve as a source of false information" (Speculation about what someone's intentions were)
 * - "and to be honest this person isn't particularly noteworthy" later added "for our field" (Did not answer when asked which field, the C1 discussions have spanned 4 different fields)
 * - "This page has actually been deleted before for the same general reasons" but:
 * The following reasons were given for the previous deletion: (1) author has only 14 publications, (2) only three papers with 10+ citations, (3) single-digit h-index, (4) lack of secondary sources). The author now has an h-index of 20 on Google Scholar, 30 papers with 10+ citations, 3 papers with 100+ citations, 1200+ citations overall, and was covered by secondary/independent articles in the media for breaking the record for "largest number factored on a quantum device".


 * Therefore, it seems all 5 accusations made in the SPA's proposal are false and the user is currently being investigated for sockpupetting and meatpupetting.
 * My !vote therefore changed from "keep" to "strong keep". However the attackers in the form of sockpuppets and meatpuppets described in the admin comment below, show up in ways in the version history which don't reflect the values of Wikipedia and don't look good on the subject of the article either. So please delete as soon as convenient (as the author of most of the content, this is akin to G7 but not necessarily labeled as such since we're already in the 7th day at AfD). If the notability becomes more "indisputable" in the future, a different user can create it. Dr. Universe (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * At the beginning I suggested to keep on the following grounds:
 * "Criterion 1 can be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea".
 * An inventor of the MLR potential which has been cited in over 100 publications and for over 20 different molecules (almost all of them by entirely different authors, see a partial list here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse/Long-range_potential#Applications). His paper on the subject was described, for example, as a "landmark in diatomic spectral analysis" by a group of entirely different authors.
 * His work in 2014 was highly publicized by multiple independent media outlets.
 * His article published in JCTC in 2015, "Why Quantum Coherence Is Not Important in the Fenna–Matthews–Olsen Complex" after about a decade of debate about whether or not quantum coherence is important in the FMO, answered the question at last. An article published in PNAS two years later by entirely different authors had almost the same title "Nature does not rely on long-lived electronic quantum coherence for photosynthetic energy transfer" confirming his 2015 answer.
 * Criterion 2 lists the Guggenheim Fellowship and Linguapax Prize as examples. The Banting Fellowship is more selective in terms of the applications to recipients ratio, and the Hetherington Prize is on par. Dr. Universe (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment:, any proof that DrUniverse is Nike Dattani? Claims like that are serious. Seemplez 08:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , if you look at his history of page edits, it is clear that he is strongly invested in making this page and is writing it in a way that nobody other than him could actually write it. For example, he managed to track down mostly irrelevant undergraduate work for his page.  Furthermore, this page was actually deleted before and he has remade it.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nikesh_S._Dattani 147.226.103.110 (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC) — 147.226.103.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * My basis for this was the first person nature of the talk page and page edits. Thank you for bringing this up. TheLawGiverOfDFT (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Incline to keep per Dr. Universe. I'll retract this if you can provide proof that Dr. Universe is "editing their own page" with a "clear conflict of interest". Seemplez 08:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The user A.S. Brown apparently knows Nike Dattani in real life as suggested by this October 2019 edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nike_Dattani#Possible_BLP_violations?. I have pinged A.S. Brown and got a response, so maybe this may soon clear things up. Dr. Universe (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Please don't make false claims that someone is "editing their own page". Seemplez 10:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was I little busy as of late. I have met Dr. Dattani once, in October 2019 and exchanged emails a couple of times, but that was the limit of my interaction. He was very unfamilar with Wikipedia, and asked for my help after meeting me by chance at an university library. To the best of my knowedge, he did not have an account with Wikipedia. --A.S. Brown (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have been accused here of "adding affiliations which are incorrect with the intention of making Wikipedia serve as a source of false information". I only added affiliations for which there were references from reliable sources not created by the subject of the article itself. If you can prove that any affiliation is incorrect, it ought to be removed. The list of affiliations is a bit long in any case, so it can certainly be shortened entirely. Dr. Universe (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Possible Meatpupetting with this account: this user. Dft4wiki and TheLawGiverOfDFT both did the same thing at almost the same time, which was to add a "proposed deletion" template to a page that in nearly 3 years never went up for deletion, and both used Single purpose accounts. Both have the letters "DFT" in their usernames. Just a reminder that "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited". Dr. Universe (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Possible further sockpupetting or meatpupetting associated with the deletion proposer (see edits here by anonymous user 147.226.103.110 with no previous edit history and getting backed up by original deletion proposer only 13 minutes later). Dr. Universe (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Weak delete. The citation record doesn't convince me of WP:NPROF C1 in what I understand to be a very high citation field.  There was some press coverage of one paper, but it looks like a WP:BLP1E situation, particularly in balance with the promotional and overly-detailed article.  I think it's still a bit WP:TOOSOON for this 2009 PhD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But the paper that you say looks like a BLP1E is only his 5th most cited paper: other papers of his have more than double as many citations as it. There is no argument here against C1 on the grounds of being an inventor of the Morse/Long-range potential and answering the question of whether or not quantum coherence is necessary in the FMO complex and the work in discrete optimization and quadratization. I also see no argument here against C2. If it was stronger case of BLP1E and there wasn't 3 or 4 other contributions that were even more cited, I wouldn't be quoting this notability guideline here: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Dr. Universe (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I absolutely do not see any serious indication of WP:NPROF C1. The awards in the article certainly do not indicate C2 (clarification added later: they are all early career awards, given for promise as much as for accomplishment).  I'm growing concerned about the WP:BLUDGEON being applied to this AfD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback! For C1 I'm a bit skeptical about your judgement since your work is in topological combinatorics and the article is about someone who's most notable work was in chemistry, biology, and quantum computing, but I'll take a step back now. About the bludgeon: a great deal of comments were in response to accusations made in the original deletion proposal which were given without proof, and concerns that three single-purpose-accounts have all been created very recently to spearhead this deletion proposal (2 acted on the article itself, and 2 commented here, including one with an IP address as their username). Dr. Universe (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Striking "weak". The WP:BLUDGEON wall of text and its lack of meaningful content has convinced me that the notability case is weaker than I first saw.  Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * delete . I started the proposal with the intention of seeing this get deleted. Dr. Universe's defensiveness is enough to convince me that this is at the least his pet project of a page.  I do not believe it meets notability standards for our field and think this is an appropriate deletion, even if there is a chance Dr. Universe is not Nike somehow. TheLawGiverOfDFT (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural note. The nomination of a page for deletion is considered to implicitly be a recommendation to delete. I struck the second !vote above to make it clear that this is not an additional user participating. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'll note the Morse/long-range potential article was also created by Dr. Universe, so the pre-eminence of being the creator of a wiki-notable tool should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt. But even if it is a relatively well-known model, Dattani is one of several authors and was merely a PhD student when it was being developed, so his involvement is that of a contributing junior investigator. Therefore the significant impact part of C1 is not met, and he falls far, far short of meeting any other NPROF criteria. Here is the Scopus comparison of Dattani and all 105 of his coauthors with more than 8 papers (which is an extremely low cutoff for this extremely high-publication field):
 * Total citations: average: 5060, median: 1512, Dattani: 548.
 * Papers: avg: 95, med: 42, D: 19.
 * h-index: avg: 25, med: 18, D: 11.
 * Top citations: 1st: avg: 689, med: 198, D: 145. 2nd: avg: 342, med: 143, D: 99. 3rd: avg: 251, med: 88, D: 80. 4th: avg: 200, med: 68, D: 59. 5th: avg: 169, med: 61, D: 27.
 * Highest first author: avg: 260, med: 100, D: 27. JoelleJay (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback! While your intentions were good (and I have no doubt!) when quoting those citation metrics, I think they are misleading (not your fault at all!). In quantum computing, which is one of Dr. Dattani's major research areas, it has become common to publish on arXiv only, intentionally. arXiv papers unfortunately do not show up in your Scopus analysis. For example, this paper by Sergey Bravyi (easily one of the most respected players in the field of quantum computing) has 99 citations in 4 years, would it be fare to exclude this article in your type of analysis? Likewise, Dr. Dattani's 5th most cited paper would not have been included in your analysis at all, because it's an arXiv only paper, but it's also perhaps the most notable due to its presence in the media in several different languages. All that being said, it is indeed true that Dattani is not a very senior researcher and hence is not cited as much as the "median" or "average" scientists in his fields of study. I'm extremely opposed to using Scopus to analyze his citations in comparison to his 105 co-authors who will largely be from his 2019 paper which had 50+ co-authors alone, and was in quantum chemistry not quantum computing. Your intentions were certainly good, but I strongly discourage using that citation data! Another thing that I very much disagree with is that, while I agree that the timeline would suggest he was a PhD student during the publication of the MLR paper, you absolutely cannot say his contribution was minor because of that. Donna Strickland recently shared the Nobel Prize in physics with her graduate-level supervisor for a paper that she published as a graduate student. Furthermore, you note that there were multiple authors on the MLR paper but 4 of them are experimentalists and 2 of them are theorists. The paper is not notable for the experiment (see the actual papers that cite the MLR paper and what part the citing sentence refers to) but for the potential that was introduced in it to successfully analyze the experiment, and this was only 2 co-authors. John Coxon is listed as a co-inventor of the MLR potential more for his role in the introduction of the MLR3 a bit later. The MLR potential was also extended and applied in subsequent papers by only Dattani and LeRoy or Dattani himself, not just the 2009 one. Also, I don't know why you call his field an "extremely high-publication field". Why is that? Nonetheless, I do agree 8 publications is a low cut-off, and I don't think the Scopus citation data is worth much in this discussion, unfortunately (50+ of those co-authors come from one single paper which has extremely highly cited authors like Don Truhlar (h-index 180 !) but Dattani does not regularly publish in that field! This is also apparent as in 2 years the paper with Truhlar has almost 200 citations, and his next highest-cited paper over his entire career has only 150 citations (the paper with 50+ authors is an outlier that skews those numbers). Thanks again for your input! The citation analysis had me raising my eyebrows for a second, and I enjoyed trying to get to (near) the bottom of it. Dr. Universe (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Condensed version of above response (if I'm becoming a bit over-zealous and causing bludgeon problems then perhaps my above paragraph can be removed, but it does provide more details):
 * - (1) You say C1 is not met because Dattani was young when he co-invented the MLR potential. That doesn't make sense to me. Plus:
 * - (1.5) I pointed out two other examples of C1 completely separate from the MLR (the "new largest number factored on a quantum computer" which received widespread media attention, and the answering of the question about whether or not quantum coherence matters in the FMO complex (there's 3 completely separate C1 arguments, not just the MLR).
 * - (2) It's true that I made the MLR Wikipedia page but that doesn't mean the MLR is not notable. It was called a "landmark in diatomic analysis" by independent authors, and has been used mainly by people other than Dattani. Just think about all the grad student diatomic spectroscopists that refer to that Wikipedia page to learn how the MLR potential works.
 * - (3) The citation analysis was done in good faith but ought to be ignored for several reasons: it compares to his 100+ co-authors but 50+ of them are from a single 2019 paper with some co-authors that are some of the most cited people on Earth (Don Truhlar with h-index 180), whereas almost all his other papers are in more esoteric fields that do not get that many citations and have completely different co-authors. He also publishes in a field where it's not uncommon to publish arXiv-only papers, which don't show up in Scopus, indeed his 5th most cited paper and some of his more substantial work are in this category. Dr. Universe (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , if I remove the coauthors from the many-author paper his citation metrics are still much lower than the average and generally even the median within his fields (TC: 2614, 1296, 548; TP: 84, 49, 19; h: 22, 20, 11; 1st: 369, 138, 145; 2nd: 162, 102, 99; 3rd: 127, 72, 80; 4th: 110, 62, 59; 5th: 91, 59, 27; FA: 228, 95, 27). I've also manually added in citations from his preprints and recalculated his hindex (using the rather liberal numbers provided by Prophy) as well as new coauthors from them (although I have not added preprint citations from any of his other coauthors so their metrics will be lower). The preprints actually mostly increased the averages and medians of the metrics (format: all coauthors/no coauthors from big 2019 paper): :TC: 4841/2679, 1438/1139, 700; TP: 95/85, 42/43, 37; h: 24/22, 17/18, 14; 1st: 650/357, 172/142, 145; 2nd: 326/165, 123/97, 99; 3rd: 239/128, 82/70, 80; 4th: 190/108, 62/61, 59; 5th: 161/91, 59/56, 27; FA: 262/239, 100/95, 27. C1 asks for academics who are well above the "average professor", so even if his citation record was slightly above the average he would still not be considered notable from this parameter. I sympathize that his publications are spread over several differently-cited fields, but that is why I look at coauthors in the first place: to account for cross-disciplinary research. It would not be fair to compare him just to his quantum computing collaborators (which would artificially inflate his metrics relative to authors who don't publish in quantum chemistry), just as it wouldn't be fair to compare him just to quantum chem or bio coauthors. Regarding MLR, we cannot use WP:OR to attribute more responsibility for its development to him -- C1 requires this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. Being used in a dozens or even hundreds of other papers does not necessarily establish its significance (else we would have articles on thousands of novel biological reporters and ImageJ plugins and data analysis scripts on GitHub). And Strickland is first author on an article cited 3000 times and authored 8 other articles cited 100+ times; this is hardly comparable to being second author on a paper cited 80 times in 12 years. JoelleJay (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) Comparing Dattani to a Nobel Prize winning Donna Strickland is not the goal, I was saying that being "junior" doesn't mean being "unimportant", in fact often most of the work is done by junior researchers, but you're using the words "senior" and "junior" so much that I'm beginning to think you have strong opinions about that, so I'll leave it alone.


 * (2) Incorrect usage of the WP:OR reference. It says in the first paragraph: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." In fact, all of your citation analysis, is original research. All of your digging into the "author contributions" section of Dattani's biology paper in your comment below, is original research.


 * (3) Thanks for pointing out the part about "widely attributed to the person in question". I'll look into it! Dr. Universe (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (1), "senior author" is standard terminology for describing the person (usually a PI) leading the research. "Junior" obviously doesn't mean "unimportant", but it also doesn't mean experimental results are automatically ascribed equally to all contributors, and they are especially not going to be widely attributed to the grad student second author of a 6-author paper where the other 5 authors are/were: #1 his PI, #3 an emeritus professor, #4 a distinguished CNRS directeur de recherche/prof, #5 a long-time CNRS chargé de recherche, and #6 another emeritus professor. (2) I'm not arguing that the policy of OR (or SYNTH, which is more what I intended) should be enforced here (although I can see how my wording could be interpreted that way); I am pointing out that the "widely attributed" requirement from C1 should not involve any synthetic extrapolation from what is verifiable. We can verify that he was second author on the MLR paper; we can not verify ... there were multiple authors on the MLR paper but 4 of them are experimentalists and 2 of them are theorists. The paper is not notable for the experiment (see the actual papers that cite the MLR paper and what part the citing sentence refers to) but for the potential that was introduced in it to successfully analyze the experiment, and this was only 2 co-authors. John Coxon is listed as a co-inventor of the MLR potential more for his role in the introduction of the MLR3 a bit later. The relative importance of the role Dattani played is not self-evident or verifiable, and therefore does not meet the relevant C1 subcriterion. JoelleJay (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) But the MLR potential is widely attributed to only that "junior" (back in 2009) author and his PI (LeRoy). The general concept originally introduced by LeRoy had an error that was corrected by Dattani who was 1st author on this in June 2008 and this in June 2009. In 2016, LeRoy (PI in Canada) and Pashov (PI in Bulgaria) published a software called betaFIT16 which calls this the "Dattani Correction". Said another way: LeRoy introduced a concept, but it had an error which was fixed in first-author papers by Dattani in 2008 and 2009, which by 2016 became known as the "Dattani Correction". The 6-author paper in October 2009 is an application of the MLR model (which was developed by LeRoy and Dattani) to experiments done by their co-authors, as per convention in diatomic spectroscopy at the time. The MLR model (which is a mathematical function used to help describe experiments) is not attributed to the emeritus professors or CNRS researchers that did the experiment and did not develop the model. In Dattani's 2018 solo-author work, he by himself when 10 years more senior generalized the MLR to describe molecules with more than 2 atoms. Your words "they are especially not going to be widely attributed to the grad student second author of a 6-author paper" contain assumptions without proof, even though I'm sure you're acting in good faith overall. I would have appreciated if you said "not likely going to be" rather than "not going to be". You cannot discount the possibility that a model is later widely attributed to a junior author, as is the case here. Likewise you say "the role Dattani played is not verifiable" instead of "not likely verifiable", and it turned out that the model contains a mathematical correction named after Dattani in a software co-authored by LeRoy and Pashov (and not Dattani). The above reference also says "Dattani's 'Quadratic-corrected' effective Cm values" and "implement Quadratic 'Dattani' MLR corrections", but never mentions any of the other 4 co-authors of the 6-author paper to which you refer. The attribution is given to Dattani rather than the emeritus and CNRS researchers.  (2) You have said a lot about C1 for the MLR potential, but have said nothing about C1 for the above-mentioned 2-author quantum computing paper and 2-author FMO paper, both of which I'm sure you'll agree that Dattani was in fact the senior of the two authors. Dr. Universe (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) A namesake correction is attributed to him in the source code (not even the paper) for a program developed by his former PI that has all of 15 citations on Scopus. That absolutely does not indicate widespread attribution of MLR to Dattani, or even widespread attribution or use of the correction. C1 says ...it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. We would need "Dattani's correction" to have an exceptional number of citations in academic journals to demonstrate its significance. I am not finding anything on Google or Scopus that supports this. I don't doubt you that among researchers in this subfield the experimentalists may not be considered the "creators" of the tool in the same capacity as the theorists, but the only evidence you have for that is your assertion. In fact, everything I've seen points to Le Roy being attributed as the creator of MLR, although it is still not clear this DPF approach is actually widely used. And as far as I can tell, the two first-author "papers" from 2008/09 and the one from 2018 you mention are actually just unpublished symposium abstracts with zero citations. Those shouldn't be cited at all on wikipedia and certainly do not establish his role as anything beyond "grad student second-author" in the development of MLR. (2) The quantum computing paper got brief, minor popsci coverage -- we do not award wiki pages to every researcher whose results are profiled in the lay media. See WP:SUSTAINED. I don't know why you bring up the FMO paper since it clearly didn't [solve] a major problem [as demonstrated by] a substantial number of references to academic publications. 59 refs in 6 years isn't bad in this field, but it's not outstanding, which is what it needs to be if it's going to count toward NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You said "Dattani is one of several authors and was merely a PhD student when it was being developed, so his involvement is that of a contributing junior investigator. Therefore the significant impact part of C1 is not met" — to which I said 4/6 authors were experimentalists and you said "we can't use OR" — I pointed out we can, and then you said the MLR is "especially not going to be widely attributed to the grad student second author of a 6-author paper where the other 5 authors are/were: #1 his PI, #3 an emeritus professor, #4 a distinguished CNRS directeur de recherche/prof, #5 a long-time CNRS chargé de recherche, and #6 another emeritus professor" — and so I found papers from earlier where he was first author and a software clearly indicating his contribution to the MLR while author #3, #4, #5 and #6 were not mentioned anywhere, confirming what I told you earlier which is that 4/6 of them are experimentalists and the model is only attributed to the first 2. Now you are insinuating that the reason why author #2 was mentioned in the software while the others weren't, was because the software was developed by author #2's PI. You're also complaining that the paper about the software has only 15 citations, but it's a 2016 paper that says in reference [43] that there was a 2013 version and a 2009 version. Reference [79] mentions another software implementing the MLR and there is another one called LEVEL which has 820 citations on Google Scholar and also has the same quadratic term of Dattani in it. You said "I don't doubt you that among researchers in this subfield the experimentalists may not be considered the "creators" of the tool in the same capacity as the theorists, but the only evidence you have for that is your assertion" — but no that is not what I said and that was not my only evidence. The experimentalists in this case are not considered creators of the MLR in any capacity, and I did give evidence beyond the "assertion", by showing you that the software doesn't consider any of the experimentalists creators of any part of it. In my first reply to you I thanked you and assumed good faith and tried to be friendly but I now worry that you are extremely invested into arguing for deletion. The extent to which you seem to want to defend your initial stance is something that I can't keep up with. I'm feeling WP:BADGERed as I thought "Not every rationale has to be explained in excruciating detail" but you wouldn't accept that the MLR is not attributed to the 4 experimentalists, and when I showed that none of them were mentioned in the software I showed you, you actually said more evidence would be needed and then said you're not convinced the DPF approach is widely used even though no one said anything about the DPF approach in the first place, so it feels like these persistent requests for evidence is approaching Sealioning. The criteria were described as "guidelines" so I didn't think I'd be persistently pushed to prove they are satisfied down to every single letter, and also: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". However, the fact the discussion has gone this long suggests to me there's at least one !vote which is "strong delete", so perhaps the article is WP:Too soon or just not notable enough. Dr. Universe (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , what you have shown is the existence of subsequent work by Dattani and Dattani's PI that expands on the MLR software, including a correction directly attributed to him. We are supposed to glean from this and, I guess, the professional positions of the other MLR authors that he and Le Roy were the only theorists and therefore the only creators of MLR. This all relies entirely on your inference (which I don't doubt may be correct) rather than evidence of explicit attribution to Dattani. What we need is a substantial amount of published scholarship by independent researchers saying, e.g., "Le Roy and Dattani introduced..." (excluding inline citations of course). and so I found papers from earlier where he was first author and a software clearly indicating his contribution to the MLR while author #3, #4, #5 and #6 were not mentioned anywhere, confirming what I told you earlier which is that 4/6 of them are experimentalists and the model is only attributed to the first 2. I don't know what the earlier papers were meant to establish -- that he has been first author of symposium abstracts related to MLR? Both of those clearly list two of the "experimentalists" as well so that doesn't indicate they're not considered co-creators. Those also clearly don't count as evidence that MLR is widely attributed to him or even that he is a creator -- of course a grad student whose project includes a particular topic is going to be "first author" on their own conference presentations. Now you are insinuating that the reason why author #2 was mentioned in the software while the others weren't, was because the software was developed by author #2's PI. I'm saying someone's former PI mentioning a namesake correction in the source code of a different program is very far from demonstrating widespread attribution of the original program to them.  Reference 43 says (a) Le Roy RJ. betaFIT 2.1. University of Waterloo Chemical Physics Research Report CP-666; 2013. (b) Le Roy RJ. betaFIT 2.0. CP-665; 2009. (c) Le Roy RJ. phiFIT 1.1. CP-663R; 2006. (d) Le Roy RJ. phiFIT 1.0, CP-663; 2006. See also 〈〉.http://leroy.uwaterloo.ca/programs/ Ref 79 says (a) Le Roy RJ, Seto J, Huang Y. DPotFit 2.0: a computer program for fitting diatomic molecule spectra to potential energy functions. University of Waterloo Chemical Physics Research Report CP-667; 2013. (b) Le Roy RJ, Seto J, Huang Y. DPotFit 1.2. CP-664; 2007. (c) Le Roy RJ, Seto J, Huang Y. DPotFit 1.1. CP-662R; 2006. See also 〈〉.http://leroy.uwaterloo.ca/programs/ LEVEL is another program by Le Roy. I don't see what any of these has to do with Dattani. Researchers implementing the software they developed in subsequent projects is obviously not "widespread use" of that software, nor is acknowledging a coauthor's tweaks to that software in those projects "widespread attribution". The experimentalists in this case are not considered creators of the MLR in any capacity, and I did give evidence beyond the "assertion", by showing you that the software doesn't consider any of the experimentalists creators of any part of it. You showed the source code for a different program by Le Roy utilizes a correction to a portion of the MLR program from Dattani. That says nothing about the original software authors. but you wouldn't accept that the MLR is not attributed to the 4 experimentalists, and when I showed that none of them were mentioned in the software I showed you, you actually said more evidence would be needed and then said you're not convinced the DPF approach is widely used even though no one said anything about the DPF approach in the first place. Again, none of them are mentioned in the source code to a different program that incorporates Dattani's corrections to particular values for particular functions of the MLR potential. They are mentioned as authors in the earlier symposium abstracts, although those both seem to suggest the MLR was actually introduced by Le Roy and Henderson in 2006/7: The analytic potential energy functions used to characterize the (X1 ∑g+) and (A 1 ∑u+) states are extended versions of the `Morse-Long-Range' (MLR) potential model which explicitly incorporates the theoretically-known inverse-power long-range behaviour within a unified potential function form. This is verified by following the source provided in that abstract (Le Roy & Henderson 2007), which contains this sentence:  So it looks like Dattani isn't even a creator of the MLR function model. JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But the "MLR function" in that 2007 paper is not the same as in papers after Dattani's 2008 work. I said before, there was an error which Dattani's 2008 work corrected (and was attributed to have corrected it). That correction is implemented in the 2009, 2013, and 2016 versions of the software betaFit, potFit, and LEVEL (at least). LEVEL has 820 citations on Google Scholar and uses the MLR. Please consider that papers often cite a program without citing all the papers that lead to it. The majority of the citations to the MLR were after 2008, and several components of the function are more complicated than in the 2007 paper. What is called MLR in newer papers, is not what was being called "MLR" in the 2007 paper, which had a mathematical error in it. Intriguingly, I cannot even find the 2007 paper to which you refer, in LeRoy's Google Scholar page. Maybe he has taken it off because of that error. Finally: I thought I made it very clear in my last comments that I am feeling badgered and don't think this level of sealioning or demanding excruciating levels of detail is fair, nor is it in the spirit of Wikipedia. You said: "What we need is a substantial amount of published scholarship by independent researchers saying, e.g., "Le Roy and Dattani introduced..."", but it's asking for too much. The criteria are guidelines. Please do not be militant about them. You wouldn't want people doing that to you. Thanks for the discussion up to now. Dr. Universe (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And PCR isn't the same as when Mullis developed it. I don't see an erratum published for the 2007 paper, nor do I see mention of this correction outside of the source code you provided of a couple subsequent programs by Le Roy. We do not cite raw source code comments on Wikipedia, much less make assertions about who invented a tool based on one editors interpretation of those comments! GS is discouraged by NPROF for citation evaluation for a reason, so the fact that Google failed to index Le Roy's 2007 paper on his GS profile means nothing. If the error was so egregious that he's embarrassed to be associated with that paper, he could have published an erratum. I don't see why he would though, it has the most citations out of any of his MLR papers. The criteria are clear that a (1) significant invention is (2) widely attributed to the subject for it to count towards notability, and you have not demonstrated either of those facets; it's no more bludgeoning to address that issue than it is for you to dispute every delete !vote. JoelleJay (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PCR isn't the same but the MLR in 2021 is the same as it was in the 2-author (Dattani & LeRoy in that order) paper in 2011. The lack of an erratum isn't enough to conclude anything. People don't always publish an erratum. The mention of the correction is not just in the code but also in the 2008 and 2009 conference papers and frankly, I don't expect it to be mentioned elsewhere because the MLR wasn't used by "outside" authors before 2009. What evidence do you have that GS didn't pick up the paper? Is there another paper by LeRoy on Scopus that you don't see on GS? How do you know LeRoy didn't remove the 2007 paper from GS manually? You say GS is discouraged but Scopus is too — Dattani's 5th most cited paper on GS (with 50+ citation, and also the most discussed in the media) probably doesn't show up at all on Scopus. Your badgering is not just about asking for demonstrating those facets, it's the excruciating detail you're asking. The purpose of requiring a scientific contribution to be "widely attributed" to someone is to confirm their role, which can be done even by one person. It probably should say "certainly attributed" rather than "widely attributed". The code clearly shows attribution when it implements a correction described in earlier conference papers. I hope your issue is more about the significance of that attributed contribution than about it being attributed to them. If the correction is a minor "tweak" that only appears in the software as an optional feature which no one uses, maybe it's insignificant no matter who it's attributed to. If it's a major correction which all subsequent MLR papers use, and LeRoy's code literally calls it "Dattani's correction", then it's "certainly attributed" to him and even if other authors just call it "the MLR" when they're using "the MLR with Dattani's correction". It is quite apparent that you want this article (and 18 others in the aforementioned 7-day period) deleted, but if we become overly concerned about the minute details (e.g. demanding evidence of "wide" attribution if it is already in fact "clearly" attributed to the person), I'm scared at the thought of how many other pages would have to be deleted on similar grounds of not following the guideline (not rule book) exactly to every single letter. By the way I had not disputed every delete !vote at the time of your last comment (e.g. I didn't dispute Eppstein's or hroest's) and while you were writing this I had already changed my vote to delete (I started doing that before you wrote the last comments and I only saw them the next day). I was the first to mention TOOSOON and some other things leaning towards. Even if that wasn't true and I did dispute every !vote, meaning that in your words what you're doing is "no more bludgeoning" than me, two wrongs don't make a right, so "it's ok for me to bludgeon because others are doing it" is not right. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * GS lists Le Roy as RJLE Roy in the authors field for the 2007 paper. This extremely common issue with GS is why the paper does not show up under Le Roy's profile, not some absurd baseless allegation of embarrassment. Christ... *No, "clearly attributed" is not equivalent to "widely attributed" in the context of the NPROF wording. "Widely" reinforces the requirement for multiple independent, reliable sources demonstrating attribution -- which the PI's raw source code comments and symposium abstracts by the same author are not. Regardless, as I've explained many times now the code shows Le Roy attributed a correction to Dattani; it is pure SYNTH to extend that to the original model, but even if Le Roy explicitly stated Dattani invented the MLR this would still fail the requirement that it be widely attributed to him.
 * You are welcome to go rescue all those microstubs on non-notable cricket players that were near-unanimously deleted if you are so concerned with my AfD participation.
 * Verifiability is a policy, not a guideline.
 * If you don't want me responding to your comments then don't reply to me. I'm not the one complaining about bludgeoning. JoelleJay (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) "don't reply to me" indicates you want to have the last word, which is exactly what the bludgeon guideline recommends not to do. I never said I "don't want you to reply to me" I said I don't want you to badger me by asking for excruciating details about every, single, point in order to establish notability.
 * (2) No one questioned whether or not "verifiability" is a policy vs guideline! I said "widely attributed" is a guideline under notability for academics, and if it's "clearly attributed" it can be enough, for example if the co-author on a paper explicitly states that it was the other one that made a certain contribution, what you said about needing an "exceptional number of citations in academic journals" is unreasonable when verifying the attribution part when the method is already very highly cited.
 * (3) I never said anything about microstubs or non-notable cricket players that were near-unanimously deleted! Why are you getting so off-topic!
 * (4) I never said clearly is "equivalent" to widely, you are putting words in my mouth, constantly! Your use of the words "extremely", "absurd", "baseless", and "Christ" in that paragraph are in my opinion not appropriate for what is supposed to be a civil discussion here. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Pinging the participants on the previous AfD.  you might be interested.  Also, would someone with permission look at the previously-deleted version and verify that this is not a WP:G4 situation? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! As it was almost 7 years ago, I don't think I have a copy of the deleted version, but it was deleted in September 2014 which was before he seems to have published anything in quantum computing. So the MLR potential probably would have been the centerpiece of that article! And now that I'm pushed to try to recall, I vaguely remember there being something about computational biology, and it wouldn't have been the above-mentioned paper about the FMO complex since that was also published after the article deletion. Starting from most-cited to least-cited on Google Scholar, I see this paper for which he was last author (meaning principal investigator in biology) and the method introduced in that paper seems to have been used in a highly-cited (100+ citations/year) paper in early 2020 paper that confirmed the origin of COVID to be from bats. I will do some more reading on this and ask some colleagues to learn more about the science, and then report back if I think there could be a 4th C1 argument added to my initial "keep" message here. If I do add a 4th, would it be better to write a separate comment, or to incorporate it into the earlier "keep" message? Unfortunately, this 4th C1 argument is based on a paper published in 2015, which is again after the previous article was deleted, so I will keep investigating to try to see what the biology paper in the first article was. Dr. Universe (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The scholar link seems to link to some citations rather than the original paper/papers. Please provide both links if you want this considered, google scholar can be unreliable at times. If you are simply pointing out that a method was used by a highly cited paper involving COVID, this does not directly relate to the work of Nike Dattani. Also, please maintain a single comment with your arguments to keep, rather than spreading them over the entire page as this is getting confusing and pushing towards WP:BLUDGEON. You have directly replied to every delete in this proposal to attempt to add more information directly, which shouldn't be required if this person is truly notable. TheLawGiverOfDFT (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies. It did not occur to me that Google Scholar works that way. The paper is called "Mapping the space of genomic signatures" and is on Dattani's Google Scholar page. The link I provided was meant to be the Google Scholar page for that article. Dattani is clearly the last author on the paper so it does directly relate if the method was used in early 2020 to connect the origin of SARS-CoV-2 to bats. I am also mindful of the risk of bludgeoning. It's not unusual for the author of a Wikipedia article to get concerned about their work being deleted, and to participate eagerly in a deletion discussion, but I am trying to take a step back where I can. I note you mentioned here here that this is your first experience on Wikipedia, which also matches with your revision history (please accept my belated welcome to you by the way!) but responses to some later comments are not typically incorporated into a much earlier "keep" message with an older time stamp. You said I replied to comments to attempt to add more information", but only I can know my intention and I would encourage you to assume good faith. Let's keep accusations to a minimum, especially because I don't want to bluegeon, but also have to respond to comments. Thanks for your understanding! Dr. Universe (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , while it's true many biology papers list the senior author last, this is a computational biology/CS paper and he is just an outside collaborator, definitely not the PI. The senior author would be the corresponding (and first) author Lila Kari, and the author contributions actually indicate he had the least involvement (which is why he is last author). JoelleJay (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) You say the "senior author would be the corresponding (and first) author Lila Kari". Then why is it that in the next paper Lila Kari is last and it's the graduate student that is first author and corresponding author?


 * (2) You say "the author contributions actually indicate he had the least involvement", but they actually indicate the contrary: "Analyzed the data: NB KAH NSD. Designed the software: NB NSD RK ASS." So NB and NSD were the only ones that were involved in both analyzing the data and in designing the software. And yet, you say he had the "least' involvement? Surely RK who only helped in software design and KAH who only helped in analyzing the data, contributed less? NB and NSD appear in the largest number of author contributions sections. Then when we look at the referenced software it points to a GitHub page for which Dattani is the only contributor.
 * (3) All this discussion is only for a 4th angle at C1 anyway. Dr. Universe (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Kari and Hill were clearly the only PIs on this paper since all of the WO authors were in their labs, with the majority being in Kari's. Dattani is the only author not at Western Ontario, he did not have a senior researcher position at the time of the paper's publication (or now?), and most importantly his funding is from his undergrad and graduate years so no he is obviously not the senior author. The full contributions list is Analyzed the data: NB KAH NSD. Wrote the paper: LK. Designed the software: NB NSD RK ASS. In-Depth analysis: LK KAH ASS RK NB KD NSD. Having a hand in all the contributions sections does not reveal the weight of his contributions (although his positions in them suggest he was the least involved in analysis) or the overall weight of a particular section. The authorship order and structure of the paper strongly suggest working on the software design was not nearly as important as the analysis; it's not the details of the code that are novel but rather the underlying theory and implementation of it. Software engineers are not the ones coming up with the experimental, computational, or analysis specs. JoelleJay (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "he did not have a senior researcher position at the time of the paper's publication" <= Based on what are you saying this? You must know them I guess? And why does it matter? In the above comment, you pointed out that Dattani was a "junior" author on the MLR paper and that the other 5 are very senior, but in the end the MLR model is in fact attributed to that lone junior author and the person you say was his PI named a component of the MLR after him as the "Dattani correction" in a software published 7 years later. Furthermore I encourage you to look at the above-mentioned 2-author quantum computing paper from 2014: Considering that Nathaniel Bryans (the NB in this biology paper) was a member of Kari's lab (as you pointed out) and Dattani was done his PhD in 2009 according to Russ Woodroofe's above comment, would you say that Dattani was the senior author and PI who lead the project while NB was the "junior" author? I see not a single other paper by NB on quantum computing but plenty by Dattani. Furthermore I encourage you to look at the above-mentioned 2-author FMO paper from 2015. The publication history of the co-author Wilkins on Google Scholar begins with 2 papers in 2012 with Dattani and Pollock, and this was also Pollock's first paper, indicating Dattani supervised or at least mentored them both for their first publication. Would you agree that Dattani was the "senior" author or PI who lead the 2014 paper with NB and 2015 paper with Wilkins? The biology paper is also from 2015. Are you sure that he did not have a senior researcher position in 2015, and if so, why does it matter if 2/4 of the possible C1 papers were done with him as the supervisor or mentor of a more junior researcher? Dr. Universe (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are continuing to misunderstand what a senior researcher/PI is in the context of paper authorship. He did not have a senior academic researcher position when he did the work for that comp-bio paper because his funding was from undergrad and grad grants and undergrad and grad students are never senior researchers. When we are talking about senior authors/PIs on papers we are not talking about post-docs or adjunct or non-TT assistant professors (in most fields), we are talking about tenured/TT professors (/non-US equivalents) in academic institutions and research directors (etc.) outside of academia. And in certain fields being "the most senior" of the authors on a paper does not indicate you are a supervisor directing research. What evidence do you have that Dattani runs his own lab/group or is tenure-track? JoelleJay (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The first time you said "he did not have a senior researcher position at the time of the paper's publication" and when I asked what that was based on (and pointed out many things pointing towards him being quite senior in 2015), you changed it to "He did not have a senior academic researcher position when he did the work for that comp-bio paper" and accused me of misunderstanding very basic academic terminology and started to do the written equivalent of yelling or raising your voice by switching to bold font, to argue the changed version of your point, and you still didn't answer the question about why it matters whether or not the author held a senior researcher position at the time. You seem to be extremely dedicated to arguing a lack of C1 for (only) 2 out of the 4 papers that have been mentioned in the context of C1, and in just 7 days you have !voted to delete 18 articles about academics and to keep zero (0) of them. I have never seen someone put so much emphasis on the difference between "post-docs or adjunct or non-TT assistant professors" vs "tenured/TT professors" (and you used Roman font for "professors" in the first category and Italic font for "professors" in the second category, I'm not sure I can any longer stomach the apparent snobbery around academic titles in a discussion about C1, not C5). You say "in certain fields being "the most senior" of the authors on a paper does not indicate you are a supervisor directing research" without specifying whether or not the subject of this discussion is in one of those fields, and in that sentence you have completely ignored the part about Wilkins and Pollock  having had 0 publications before the 2012 one with Dattani, and similar for Bryans in the 2014 paper, and similar for several other junior authors who you can see published their first paper with Dattani being either the first or last author: If you kept the detail about this being the first paper for the co-authors, and the fact that the senior-most author had already been publishing for years, you would unlikely be downplaying the role of the senior author so much in that sentence. When we are talking about eligibility to pass C1, the question you're asking about whether or not the person is on a tenure-track journey is totally outside of our scope. Academic ranks come in to play for C5, but no one is talking about C5 here. This fixation on "rankings" and tenure-track vs adjunct etc. is not something I would like to participate in (maybe others are ok with it) for a discussion about C1 eligibility. Your dedication to arguing for deletion also suggests I should throw in the towel at least on my side. It may be a case of WP:TOO SOON or too much COI here. Dr. Universe (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , yep, definitely TOOSOON and COI. But to respond to your comments:The first time you said "he did not have a senior researcher position at the time of the paper's publication" and when I asked what that was based on (and pointed out many things pointing towards him being quite senior in 2015), you changed it to "He did not have a senior academic researcher position when he did the work for that comp-bio paper". You were arguing he was the senior author on that compbio paper. I responded that he definitely was not, as evidenced by his funding for that paper being undergrad and grad grants, and by the authors including the actual professor leading the research group. I initially only noticed the latter fact, which was more than enough to support his not being the senior author at the time of publication. Later I saw what his funding was and so added that he was also not senior whenever he made those contributions, which would have to have been much earlier than 2015. you still didn't answer the question about why it matters whether or not the author held a senior researcher position at the time. You introduced the relevance of being senior author when you mentioned this paper for which he was last author (meaning principal investigator in biology) as a potential 4th C1 argument. It is relevant to whether we can attribute significant results to someone -- being the PI is a much stronger position than first author -- although in this case the paper so clearly fails C1 that it didn't matter. You seem to be extremely dedicated to arguing a lack of C1 for (only) 2 out of the 4 papers that have been mentioned in the context of C1, and in just 7 days you have !voted to delete 18 articles about academics and to keep zero (0) of them. I don't know how this is relevant or where you're getting these numbers but in the last 2 weeks I have !voted in 6 academic AfDs one of which I !voted speedy keep. And in a 7th I commented what will be assessed as a keep !vote. My !vote was in line with consensus in the 4 that have been closed. I have never seen someone put so much emphasis on the difference between "post-docs or adjunct or non-TT assistant professors" vs "tenured/TT professors" (and you used Roman font for "professors" in the first category and Italic font for "professors" in the second category, I'm not sure I can any longer stomach the apparent snobbery around academic titles in a discussion about C1, not C5). The distinction is critical in determining the weight we give a particular paper being considered for either C1 citations or C1 "significant discovery". And ok, I should have italicized "tenured/TT" as well as "professors" to be consistent with my internal emphasis style. You say "in certain fields being "the most senior" of the authors on a paper does not indicate you are a supervisor directing research" without specifying whether or not the subject of this discussion is in one of those fields, and in that sentence you have completely ignored the part about Wilkins and Pollock having had 0 publications before the 2012 one with Dattani [...] If you kept the detail about this being the first paper for the co-authors, and the fact that the senior-most author had already been publishing for years, you would unlikely be downplaying the role of the senior author so much in that sentence. The relevance of being the PI/group leader/thesis adviser is the same as I explained above, and since there is zero evidence he is in those roles it's clear he does publish sometimes in such fields. Math grad students regularly publish alone or with an undergrad in their group without their adviser; inasmuch as author seniority is even considered in these fields, their being the senior-most author obviously doesn't imply they hold a position of the same importance that, say, last-author of a bio paper holds. JoelleJay (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not judge the importance of someone's contributions based on their title at an institution or how senior they are. You seem convinced that Kari and Hill were PIs. According to author contributions, neither of them were involved in the implementation and Kari was not involved in the analysis. Dattani was involved in both and 100% of the commits on GitHub. You keep mentioning that his funding was from undergrad scholarships, and I'm not sure how you know this but I take your word for it. However you said he was a grad student in 2008. His undergrad would likely have been before that. If it was in 2004, then there's 11 years between the undergrad funding and the paper's publication. One Google Scholar we see several previous versions on arXiv with Kari, Hill and Dattani but not some of the other authors (at least 3 of them are missing from those). Earlier you said Dattani's contribution was the "least important", but this evidence refutes that. Maybe he had an undergrad scholarship in 2004 when he first started working on the project, but then worked on the rest of it in his free time during his post-PhD years: the point is just because there's an acknowledgement for some undergrad funding program, does not mean that when the paper was published 11 years later, he did not contribute significantly. Your arguments would sound a lot more convincing if you once and for all stopped making assumptions about people's ranks and titles and how they are related to the worth of someone's contributions. The only thing we can see is that 100% of the commits on GitHub were from Dattani, and those were in years after the PhD, so it's not like he worked as an undergrad then did nothing for 11 years. The commits on GitHub show that work was done after his PhD, and the lack of a listed funding source for the commits he pushed to GitHub after his PhD, means nothing. Maybe he didn't have funding to specifically continue this work, but the evidence shows that he did continue working on it. I have some COIs here: I wrote the article a long time ago and spent time and effort on it, I'm a fan of LeRoy and the people he touched (I wrote articles about Donald James LeRoy and Jiri Cizek too, but they were speedy deleted due mainly to lack of experience at the time), I do not like the type of academic elitism where you assume that the "PI" did all the work and you discriminate gentleman scientists who are unfunded or don't hold conventional positions at universities. You have some COIs too, as you've invested a lot into trying to take this article down and you seem relentless in your effort to ensure that investment wasn't wasted, and your comments in other deletion discussions indicate you want to sustain delete decisions that are on the stricter end when evaluating academic notability, and share Eppstein's view in the notability talk page, that there's a lot of very high-citation scientists with 10,000+ citations who don't yet have articles, and not much favor for leniency for far younger scientists who cause the balance to be peculiar. Thanks for your considerations here. I'd be happy if we can both move onto other work.  Dr. Universe (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * From my contrib history it should be obvious I wasn't aware of Dattani or anyone affiliated with him before I saw this AfD, so the COI allegation is completely unfounded. I have exactly the same info you have on him (actually probably far less). Kari and Hill are/were professors, with Kari supervising PhD students since at least 2003 (including one of the coauthors) and Hill since at least 2013 (including another of the coauthors (see starred names)). Dattani's funding for the 2015 paper is listed on the same page as the paper text that you linked. GitHub commits are not RS and they do not reflect an author's importance to a project, especially one where the novelty and results center around the bio-computational theory behind the software rather than the implementation of the code. Demanding RS to support assertions of academic notability isn't elitism; if someone makes truly important scholarly contributions then they will have the citation record, awards, or professional position to achieve NPROF or the sustained SIGCOV needed for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your COI is based on things like the effort you've invested into getting the article deleted, and the fact that you !voted to delete 18 out of 18 of the articles you !voted on in a 7-day period. You're now determined to "win" and have nitpicked every response to your arguments. As the article creator I also have a COI, and the 22 accounts/IPs currently being investigated probably also had a COI (one of them had an IP address from "Lila's macbook pro" at Lila Kari's university and all they did was remove her name from the article). About Github — GitHub is a clear way to see who did what. Your assumptions about where the novelty lies is what you have called SYNTH. About RS — You're not just demanding RS, you are demanding it in excruciating detail. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Putting the slight effort of looking up the authors of a paper and paying attention to their funding is not COI. Attempting to disabuse editors of, at best, [WP:CIR|substantial WP policy misunderstandings] is not COI. Rejecting GitHub commits as non-RS SYNTH is not COI. Creating articles on people you know personally and name-bombing them in numerous other articles IS COI. JoelleJay (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * COI was declared by me multiple times since I was the article's creator, but you are failing to acknowledge your several COIs which I can name in far more detail if you continue to deny them. Those three things you said are not COI, are not what anyone said was COI. Also, it was User:A.S. Brown that claimed to know the subject personally, not me. And A.S. Brown has not made any substantial edits to the article, nor to this discussion. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, do share what you think my WP:COIs are. JoelleJay (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion was closed 17 minutes after you wrote that, and I didn't think I was allowed to write further here until I saw that AS Brown did. With this discussion closed already, let me choose not to respond further. Dr. Universe (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding the previous article: both articles make the claim of involvement in inventing MLR potential. It is possible that authors of the 2014 article pulled this Dattani's work into that article. It is possible that it's an innocent name collision. There is one detail that is different between the two that would make it highly unlikely, but not impossible, for the two articles to be written about the two: the subject of the article deleted in 2014 was identified as female. Setting that aside, there are enough changes that G4 does not apply. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Dr. Universe seems to have knowledge of it, seems to know what would have been on it, and has edit history for it. The name also matches identically to another name he/she has gone by.  It is hard to believe these would be totally different pages, the pronoun usage may have either changed or been a mistake at the time.  See this article.  Can you confirm what topics show up on the page broadly speaking? Clicked edit after your change, I see you changed it along with my original observation.  TheLawGiverOfDFT (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For this article I used the name "Nike Dattani" which is what is on Google Scholar and his recent publications. As the original article was 7 years ago, it's possible that they changed their gender and name. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. A lot closer to academic notability than the previous round, several years ago, but with only three papers with triple-digit citation counts, all with many coauthors (and Dattani not first) in high-citation topics, I'm still not convinced. The COI editing problems push me from weak delete to full delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback ! It may indeed be another case of WP:TOO SOON and a case of too much COI. If I may ask a question: your comment suggests that without COI editing problems, you'd recommend delete or weak delete if an academic has only 3 papers with 100+ citations in these fields especially if they aren't first author. At what number of papers (let's assume again that he's not first-author on any of them, but second-author on most of them as in this case) would your recommendation be keep? Some minor points about these papers being in high-citation topics (no need to reply since 3 non-first-author papers with 100+ citations isn't so much anyway):
 * (1) I would largely ignore the highest-cited paper anyway because it's a paper about a highly-used open-source software with 50+ co-authors, and each person that uses the software will cite the paper. Being a co-author still counts for something, but the number of citations needs to be damped by the number of co-authors.
 * (2) The other two papers might be on higher-citation topics than some topics in pure math but far lower-citation than most topics in medicine, biology, chemistry, pharmacology etc. Probably 0.00001% of the world population (about 780 people, that even sounds a bit generous!) has ever heard of a "quantum master equation" before let alone the number of people that care about this specific paper, and looking at the 3rd paper with 100+ citations (published in 2009), the first-author LeRoy was publishing since 52 years ago and has only 1 other paper that has got as many citations/year (if we ignore "HITRAN database: 2012 edition" and "LEVEL: A computer program for..." since databases and software are cited a lot). I'd say the 2nd paper is on a low-to-medium-citation topic and the 3rd one is just a highly-cited paper on a very low-citation topic due to introducing the MLR model which was then used by many others.
 * (3) Neither points (1) nor (2) are meant to change anything about your general recommendation to delete. Indeed 3 papers with 100+ citations isn't so much, and the 1st one has 50+ authors: I was just making the minor point about the 2nd and 3rd papers not quite being in areas where it's easy to get 100 citations. Dr. Universe (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that David (the delete !voter here) created the Eleanor Rieffel article on 19 November 2018 when the subject had only 3 entries with 100+ GS citations, and 2 of those were not original research articles (just secondary review works that carry less weight). Rieffel and Dattani work in the same subfield of quantum computing, and the same sub-subfield of adiabatic quantum computing and Rieffel seems to be the one presenting Dattani as a speaker in a conference, meaning same sub-sub-subfield (within Adiabatic Quantum Computing) so we can't say this disparity was due to one author working in a more "high-citation topic" than the other. Dr. Universe (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Admin comment - FYI - A sockpuppet investigation has been opened regarding select participants in this AfD. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * . Here's some more IPs or SPAs that might benefit from investigation:
 * - This account User:Taka_tanimura of a Kyoto University professor, along with several SPAs with Kyoto University IP addresses (130.54.130.233, 130.54.130.244, 130.54.50.111, 130.192.155.249, 130.192.155.248 and repeatedly tried changing "Kyoto University" to "Kyoto Women's University" or removing it altogether, from Dattani's page, but articles such as the 2014 one by Phys.org and multiple 2015 papers said that Dattani worked at Kyoto University).
 * - This account User:BountyTJ has entered into similar edit wars, trying to remove cited references about Dattani: The user has edited articles about research institutes in the Netherlands, and similar edits or edit wars happened from this Netherland's IP address: 217.101.236.202, this Dutch name User:Agdijkstra, and reverts that were similar to BountyTJ and at similar times were from: User:FidelCastrum, User:Mrs. Norma Smith, User:Friendly Colleague, User:Lellowiki. See this talk page for: talk:Hierarchical_equations_of_motion.
 * - User:TheLawGiverOfDFT, User:Dft4wiki, 147.226.103.110 (SPAs created at around the same time, all doing similar edits attempting to get this article deleted).
 * - 23.233.1.239 removed mention of Dattani being a co-author with Lila Kari and all other edits were on Kari's article, but the IP address points to "Lila's macbook pro" at Kari's university.
 * - 24.134.125.217 (2 edits, both removing references to Dattani), Special:Contributions/192.225.188.2, 213.205.194.52
 * - User:NikeDattani (SPA that's already banned, but probably not actually Nike Dattani because all they did was make edits that would be unfavorable to Dattani in for example Hierarchical_equations_of_motion). This user created the illusion that Dattani was making edits on his own page.
 * - User:Gaurarjun account blocked indefinitely, wrote scathing edit summaries on Dattani page. Dr. Universe (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - More, but this is what I could come up with this hour.
 * signed: Dr. Universe (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dr. Universe. Please add them to the sockpuppet investigation with your proof. I merely reported and requested the investigation, I am not doing it myself. You can find it here. Missvain (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I wonder, how did this possible sockpuppet situation reach your attention? Another admin was in this AfD discussion and interacted with those user accounts, but it was you that opened the investigation. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * delete C1: while Dr. Dattani clearly contributed to the MLR method this was done as undergraduate work and likely the supervisor had a leading hand in that. The FMO paper seems marginal given that typical corner stone papers in that field have far beyond 1000 citations. While he has more than 1000 citations on his google scholar page this is not really what I would consider notable in the fields where he is involved. He also do not seem to have a current affiliation, which I am convinced he would if he would really be that important. I do not want to say that he is not a good scientist, I just do not think that he is someone that is of broad general interest. C2: 175 Guggenheim Fellowships are awarded every year, I did not find Dr. Dattani on the list of Linguapax Prize winners. The Banting Fellowship does not appear to be noticeable enough to be mentioned on wikipedia. He is not listed among the recipients of the Banting Award as otherwise listed on this wikipedia page. Dr. Universe added Dr. Dattani as recipient on the Clarendon Fund on that wikipedia page.  While receiving such prizes certainly says something about the skills of the recipient I do not think these prices award notability in the broad public. BountyTJ (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good that you're here BountyTJ. Are you able to clear up anything about the 6 SPA accounts I mentioned above regarding the sockpuppet (or in this case meatpuppet) investigation? It is not true that you can't find his name on the Banting Fellowship website. It's there. I never said he got the Linguapax prize. Can you give examples of the papers in that field that have far beyond 1000 citations? Dr. Universe (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. Sorry, I cannot help you on these accounts as I do not have any knowledge of them, except this one which was mentioned in the list. 2. I understand that Dr. Dattani DID get the Banting FELLOWSHIP, but the article links to the Banting AWARD, which he did not get according to the wikipedia page on the Banting AWARD. 3. Thanks for clarifying that he did not get the Linguapax prize, I misunderstood your original post that mentioned that prize, but indeed did not claim that he received it. (This whole discussion is getting very long and an increasing amount of irrelevant information is accumulated.) I removed the prize from my argument above. 4. A few examples of relevant papers in the range of or beyond 1000 citations on "quantum biology" include: Nature 446 (7137), 782-786 (>3000 citations), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (29), 12766-12770 (>1000 citations), The Journal of Chemical Physics 129 (17), 11B603 (>1100 citations), New Journal of Physics 10 (11), 113019 (>1000 citations), Nature Physics 6 (6), 462-467 (>700 citations). 5. I do not see any reason to discuss here if other pages that you initiated should potentially be removed or not or if a page to prominently cited scientists as for example Gregory Engel should be added. I think that should be discussed on those other respective pages. BountyTJ (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying the errors with the Linguapax prize and Banting award vs fellowship. About the accounts, you publicly accused Dr. Universe of being "Dattani's secretary, Mrs Norma Smith" and then at exactly around that time in September 2009 the account User:Mrs. Norma Smith was created only to do nothing but remove lots of information about Dattani's contributions. The other accounts were created at the same time and did the same things. One of these accounts (now banned) had username NikeDattani, and it's conceivable that whoever had the audacity to create an account with the name of Dattani's secretary, would also be one of the rare people with the audacity to create an account fradulently using Nike Dattani's name. Thanks for pointing out those papers with 1000+ citations — they are all discussing quantum coherence in photosynthetic complexes (one of them even went as far as to say that the FMO is a quantum computer carrying out Grover's search algorithm and that is totally incorrect), which is what Dattani's paper is saying is "not important" for the efficiency of the FMO complex because the coherent HEOM calculation and the incoherent Foerster calculation are getting the exciton to the reaction center at the same time (the only difference is that HEOM gives oscillations and Foerster does not). So your use of citation counts to assess the importance of the paper is a red herring. His paper is telling people not to keep working on that topic, and indeed citation counts in that field are gradually going down and you cannot expect his paper to get 1000+ citations if people indeed stop working on the topic. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * delete this is simply WP:TOOSOON, while he seems to be on a great career path and probably will have an article at some point, it is too early right now. He currently fails WP:NPROF as shown above in great length including by JoelleJay, he has neither major awards/recognitions in the field nor enough citations to pass NPROF#1. The article also has major errors, such as claiming he won a Banting Award (for diabetes research) when in fact he was awarded a (less prestigious) Banting fellowship. Strangely, in the first version of the article, the subject is referred to as "she". --hroest 00:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Question Your initial deletion reason said that I was "adding affiliations which are incorrect". Can you tell us which is incorrect? You also said "I do not believe it meets notability standards for our field" which field is that? The C1 discussions were about papers in a few fields (designing analytic models for diatomic potentials, integer factorization, quantum dynamics, computational genomics). You and User:dft4wiki both have DFT in your names but Dattani's publication lists don't appear to have a single paper claiming to be about Density Functional Theory or Discrete Fourier Transforms or their usage. Dr. Universe (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Aside. I am concerned about apparent COI related to the article under discussion.  I wish to record here that  has added (and in many cases reverted removal of) extensive and possibly WP:UNDUE mention of Dattani at a large number of Wikipedia articles.  As they are easier to uncover before the article is deleted, I am listing them here: Timeline of quantum computing and communication, Dilithium, RSA numbers, Integer factorization records, Quantum master equation, Fenna–Matthews–Olson complex, Pseudo-Boolean function, Morse/Long-range potential, Hierarchical equations of motion, Quadratic pseudo-Boolean optimization. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was also going to say that those would have to be taken care of once the article is deleted. I have admitted to having a COI as the article creator but the COI on this article is more complicated than that — 22 different accounts/IPs were mentioned above in the section about SP investigation. Thanks again for all your input! You're been helpful. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As another aside, Dr. Universe has graduated to WP:HOUNDING me on my talk page and on other AfDs I've !voted on  (including this comment: JoelleJay, be careful not to WP:Badger the user.) JoelleJay (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I told you not to badger someone on one AfD, and it was only that 8-word sentence, and it was before I knew what WP:HOUNDING was, yet you said "AfDs" in plural which is deceiving. On your talk page, I tried to give you a friendly notice to update the part that says "This user is pursuing a PhD" since the bottom listed you under "Wikipedians that have a PhD" and I figured you graduated but forgot to update it. As a follow-up I tried to call a truce with you by suggesting we should let this page get deleted (which is what you argued so long for). Dr. Universe (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I too am seeing a pattern WP:SEALIONing behavior here. I'm impressed at your efforts to explain academic notability rules, but I suggest that engaging further here is not going to be productive.  Pinging  as an administrator not involved in any dispute, but who is already aware of the situation here, in case further action is warranted. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2021 (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.