Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man Singh (professor)

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. Star Mississippi 14:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man Singh (professor)

Man Singh (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, India, Delhi, and Gujarat. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 11:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete On examining what is in his apparent Scholar page, many of the papers are not his, so the h-factors of 47 and 10k citations claimed by the original editor is incorrect. His university page https://cug.irins.org/profile/100821 has 357 journal articles claimed (dubious) and an h-factor of 28. Some of the claims on his patents are also very dubious on closer inspection. I have no tolerance for anything that comes close to academic dishonesty. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain why? I'm unclear on what he's being dishonest about. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not uncommon for Google Scholar profiles to be inaccurate, because Google automatically picks up publications from people with similar names and the person whose profile it is doesn't take the effort to remove them again. Being lazy about curating one's profile is not dishonest. But the article creator should know better. If the article creator is taking the GS profile as valid when it isn't, that speaks to a certain lack of care but is not in itself dishonest. If the article was created through COI editing or undeclared paid editing (for which I have no evidence) then it involves likely oversight by the subject and then honesty might come into it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As an addendum, please remember that Google Scholar profiles are created by academics, and they can (should) subtract inappropriate papers which might end up there. If you go to his profile and follow the papers to look at where authors are from, e.g. this and this you will see that they have "Man Singh" authors from different locations and very different fields. There are some where the initials are different. There are other interesting issues in the Wiki page such as the statement that he is/was a Dean, which I cannot verify at his university. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looking through the top-ten-cited publications on Google Scholar, I see: "Ecofriendly application", "Cassia fistula extracts": Hindawi, dubiously-reliable publisher. "Survismeter": heavy self-citations. "Decline of human anatomy", "Soil fungi for mycoremediation", "monthly high‐dose vitamin D", "Structure and Biogenesis": different affiliation, probably not by the same person. "Methods and computer program products", "Chest pain": not even the same name. At #9, finally, we have "Physicochemical and friccohesity", looking legitimate but with 93 citations. That's definitely not enough for
  WP:PROF#C1. Nothing else stands out in the article as a likely claim to notability, and most of its content is promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The subject himself is the participant in all sources on the page. The page looks more like a resume. The subject is not notable under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Fails
  WP:NACADEMIC with no independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Independent sources are not part of the

  WP:NACADEMIC requirements. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete per nom does not WP:PROF notability.Tame Rhino (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.