Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranga Dias (scientist)


 * 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. Clear consensus exists that the interviews do not contribute sufficient notability. Daniel (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ranga Dias (scientist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Assistant prof with h index of 11. Had some media attention for metallic hydrogen and was co-author of a paper with >350 cites back in 2017. But is this enough to warrant a pass of WP:NPROF or WP:GNG? I'm not convinced. Plus might be WP:TOOSOON to know if the 2020 superconductivity result is actually notable. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am not seeing evidence of meeting NPROF C1, either through straight citations or through some subjective citation-independent concept of "impact". Media attention is on the result, not the author, and anyway would qualify for BLP1E unless there was sustained interest and significant attribution of the result to him. JoelleJay (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC).
 * Keep. I agree that he does not pass C1, his citations and scores are too low and not impactful enough. It appears he did recently win an NSF career award but I do not believe this counts for C2 despite some of its prestige since it's more a grant to study something. However, it does have press coverage to some extent. His group website does a good job at catalog press on him and related to his research. I was able to rather easily find several news articles interviewing him, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and there are others. Most are in science magazines but he's been mentioned and interviewed in Vice and Business Insider which strikes me as adding up to pass WP:GNG when taken with his research activity. This also tips the balance in my view that he passes WP:PROF C7. While his research is currently of lower impact, he is studying a challenging and important field and seems to having an impact anyway. I was on the fence between weak keep and keep, but ultimately went to keep because of numerous small factors that add up. If this isn't kept I am almost certain it will be remade in several years and is a case of WP:TOOSOON Side note; metallic hydrogen is really neat. -- Tautomers (T C) 21:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments Would the interviews not count as primary sources though, and not be independant? And I'm not sure if something like https://time.com/collection/time100-next-2021/5937727/ranga-dias/ is sufficient to count as significant coverage of him as a person. There might be a case for combining multiple items though to show notability... -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment That is my feeling on the matter, that there are numerous interviews and it seems like he's making a concerted effort into involving himself in commentary/conversation on his field of study, and all taken together makes it seem like he's having a noteworthy impact. I am only one opinion on this though. -- Tautomers (T C) 23:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment That does sound more like he's promoting himself, rather than being independantly notable. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment On whether interviews are primary sources to be given lesser weight: Here is an admin using interviews as support for keeping a BLP FWIW. --Yae4 (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2021‎ (UTC)


 * The coverage seems pretty much standard for flashy inventions in the superconductor world. We get excitement every time they raise the temperature a few degrees, with media attention increasing dramatically if the researchers are trying to attract funders for their startups. I don't think it is sustained enough to demonstrate major impact on the field, especially since it's so impractical right now -- it's an important stepping stone, but not necessarily one that will produce extraordinary renown. It should also be noted that he co-led the research according to the Vice article. The handful of interviews is not enough for C7, since most of them relate directly to his research (not him) and are not probing his general expertise in the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, lacks significant coverage about the individual - the only coverage appears as part of a group not as an individual. The notability issue been tagged since January 2018 without any significant improvements or more reliable secondary sources. As indicated those sources which are interviews with the individual are clearly primary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not yet as big a popular splash as Stanley_Pons but with a little work on the article, he'll be close enough for Wikipedia. NY Times and this just in, Forbes coverage. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't get to the NY Times articles right now, but the Forbes article is just a passing mention of the person, and is primarily about the techology - not significant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Newslinger is not using interviews to support notability there, they're using them to demonstrate the person not being low-profile. JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Solid hydrogen and room temparature super-conductor is notable enough for the lead inventor to be notable. --Greatder (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON. He hasn't even gotten tenure or associate professor. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Assistant professor with limited academic output (h-index = 11). Uhooep (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I come down on the keep side because of coverage. Interviews are not useful for WP:Verification, exceptions noted, but they are useful for coverage, particularly when the questions being asked are looked at.  I often think the we are too quick to keep musicians and too quick to discard scientists. --Bejnar (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , the opposite is true for interviews: they can be used sparingly for verification, but cannot be used for notability considerations because they are primary and not independent of the subject. Also, academics have by far the easiest path to WP notability (no other guideline has automatic passes, much less passes without any secondary coverage at all, and scholars can always get in through GNG anyway). JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Interviews are often partially independent, namely the interviewer and their organization, although a lot of what is said by the interviewee cannot be used for verification, the types of questions asked and the scope of the interview, as well as any introduction by the interviewer can all go towards coverage, and the depth of coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * delete WP:TOOSOON while clearly a monumental achievement if turned to practical use, it is way to early for the impact to be seen outside and inside academia. If this pans out an article would be in line in a few years. --hroest 21:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete not yet notable. A goood deal of attention, but its to unverified work. Which exact rule we use to delete it isn't really the point.  DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 17 July 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.