Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parimelazhagan Thangaraj


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Parimelazhagan Thangaraj

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per WP:GNG, subject is clearly not notable enough to deserve any space on Wikipedia. And too many primary sources used + facebook is not reliable. -- Eatcha 09:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - it seems as there is almost 2000 mentioning of him on Google scholar search. Any thought from your WP:BEFORE? Kolma8 (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As per the Wikipedia requirements, the information from JSTOR, newspapers, and books were added. The contents are re-edited and modified. The information are linked with external websites. Subject is deserve space on Wikipedia, because he is a well known Professor who contributed so many research articles and books to the research communities. Indian Scientists (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * delete this is WP:TOOSOON, he does not pass WP:NPROF#1 (yet). In a high citation field, 2000 citations is not a lot. It is not clear how "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." -- his two most cited works concern extraction methods of metabolits on certain plants, how does performing an acetone extraction on a plant and measuring several properties of it amount to a major "significant impact"? I think the "Research projects and Patents" section says it all. The only argument I can muster is that we have kept similarly weak cases recently. --hroest 16:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. So, this was a really tough citation metrics project: most of the Indian coauthors (and the subject himself) are indexed under multiple identities on Scopus, including inverted name order (e.g. "Parimelazhagan Thangaraj" also appears under "Thangaraj Parimelazhagan"), and Scopus has an even worse time with his Brazilian coauthors (who have names like "Eloísa Portugal Barros Silva Soares de Souza, where "Eloísa" + any combination of the last four names can show up as a separate entry), so I've been going through and manually merging these people and recalculating h-indices. After doing this for his first 40 coauthors (with ≥5 pubs), Dr. Thangaraj/Parimelazhagan is looking around average (and well above the median) for his field, but I still have another 70 people to address so this will likely change. All this is just to say that his GS citations may be similarly affected. On the other hand, he (and his coauthors) publish a lot in what may be WP:FRINGE journals, which shouldn't count towards notability, so this will probably be a very messy AfD overall. JoelleJay (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. the publications in WP:FRINGE journals make me even more confident that this is not a very notable person. Most cited paper is in  Journal of King Saud University-Science, 2014. --hroest 02:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We can't discriminate the journals based on high impact factors. Many of the highly impacted journals having the Article Processing Charges can sometimes not be afforded by authors from developing and low-income countries. Interestingly, many funding agencies don't support APC. Some times the APC exceeds the annual income of a researcher (e.g. Nature communications; €4,530 = 387649.29 Indian Rupees!!! + Taxes), so it is tough to get published in those journals.
 * I think T Parimelazhagan deserves space on Wikipedia because he contributes to establishing applied research in Tamil Nadu by educating local Tamil people. Some news about him in news channels are here;
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3XIEXMSwRc&list=LL&index=33; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDS69CVw2j0&list=LL&index=7&t=14s. He also established an IPR cell in the University. Read more at:
 * http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/70940234.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst Indian Scientists (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for your perspective, however the argument was not about high/low impact factor but whether this researcher is above-average in his field and on top of that I made a comment about WP:FRINGE. You can publish in low impact factor journals but if your research is important, it will generally get cited a lot and this will show up in your citation metrics. Also, many high quality journals have mechanism to reduce APC for lower income countries or waive them as in the example of Nature Communications. Furthermore, while it is helpful to know that he contributed to education of Tamil people, however the question here based on WP:NPROF#1 is whether "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." This is not about whether he "deserves" to be on Wikipedia, but rather whether he is notable enough to pass either WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. --hroest 14:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete we have a duty to our readers to consider how highly regarded and impactful the place someone publishes is. Passing notability guidelines for academics is not just publishing a certain amount. This guy does not pass the actual inclusion criteria at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see how membership and awards from provincial organizations merits passing the prof test. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 7 April 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.