Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sandeep Nayak

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Sandeep Nayak

 * Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

already declined 3 times, with no significant improvement. Will not meet notability requirements--his most cited publication has only been cited 17 times, and there is nothing else that even indicates possible notability  DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This guy? https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=_hl4YwYAAAAJ&hl=en
 * One counts 27 citations? H-index = 6
 * What H-index is good? I’m pretty sure 6 is not good enough.  My limited experience with nominated PROF bios is that 40 is more like it.
 * WP:PROF is not very helpful, neither is anything I can find in the WT:PROF archives. User:DGG?
 * I think google scholar is a good thing to look at. What I see is few publications and quite a list of recent uncited academic promotion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Neutral - Not clear that this needs deleting yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - This isn't AFD, is it? Do we need to delete drafts for non-notability, or only for the combination of non-notability and being a nuisance?  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * thecombination of not likely to show notability enough for an article, and continuing resubmissions DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * H index is in my opinion irrelevant. It's ment to discriminate between the better mediocre and the lesser mediocre. What counts for WP is not the average importance of someone's articles, but whether they have ever done really important work, Someone with a h of 10 might have publications with citations 300, 299, 298,297,296, 295, 294,293,292,10... or of 19,18,17,16,15,14,13,12,11, 10...The first person is extremely notability, the 2nd probably not.  (Just like for an author many mediocre books is not the equivalent of a best-seller.) In practice here in the biomedical sciences which is a field with very frequent publication and thus inherently high citation figures, at least one publication with 100 or more citations is needed to show notability here; in other fields of science, like mathematics, where people publish only infrequently, it can be many fewer..
 * The difficulty in interpreting these figures for someone not in the main scientific research-producing countries is that they will generally publish mostly in local publicatio nnot read elsewhere and not covered even by Google Scholar. This general problem is WP:Cultural prejudice,and it needs to be accounted for. But in science, the criteria are international  DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:DGG, so you’re a fan of citation count from most cited paper? I’m not, because one very well cited paper will go to BIO1E.  However, in any case, I think we agree that this person it an obvious failure on any publication metric.  Delete.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * For anyone where we're consideringWP:PROF, there will normally be other well cited work also. I was about to say that Bio1E is irrelevant, but that may not always be the case: consider a student whose name is is one of a number of people working on a project, and a paper is then published with his name as one of the authors. If it's an important project, it may get 100 citations ,or perhaps 500. But he still won't be notable . And either would he be if his name was on two such papers. For the actual use of citation data, the mere count is just a starting point. In the RW, if considering an appointment or tenure, the key factor would be the person's role & it can take quite a bit of analysis and even correspondence. Even at WP, we have sometimes tried to discriminate who is the principal authors. (it's conventional in most fields for it to be either the first or last, but it depends on the head of the group; sometimes it's done alphabetically, in which case the paper usually says so in order that people do not draw the wrong conclusions. The principal author is sometimes the person listed as "corresponding author", but not always. It sometimes  is the person who received the grant, but not always.  I have often in discussions here considered when in the person's career the best cited work was done--if in their grad student years, they are unlikely to be the principal author, but there have been exceptions.   The main situation needing such analysis here is a MD who was one a group doing research as a med student, but never did much on their own later, but still lists that earlier work prominently in their article or website.)
 * As a very general observation, in most cases we use shorthand methods to determine notability . The usual ones we look at in detail here are the ones where there's a real question, or there seems to be arguments for notability or non-notability based on some sort of fan effect or prejudice one way or another.
 * As another very general observation, BL1E has exceptions--- there have been famous, not merely notable, authors who have published only one significant book & similarly in other fields. The actual conditions for using BLP1E are more complicated than it may seem--see WP:BLP1E--all 3 conditions must be met
 * If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
 * If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual...
 * IIf the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented ..  DGG ( talk ) 07:56, 15 January 2019 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.