Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tankeshwar Kumar

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 keep‎. There is a consensus to Keep and no support for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tankeshwar Kumar

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Academic who does not have a publication record or awards that would pass

WP:NPROF, plus at least one of the sources does not validate claim in article. The page was declined via AfD, then moved by editor to main and a contested draftify. Deletion seems appropriate as there is no evidence of an attempt to satisfy notability requirements. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Our article claims that he has been head of two new-ish regional universities in India,
WP:PROF#C6? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I did think about this, particularly in the context of the recent discussions at
WP:PROF#C6 which I feel is warranted. (While some months ago I accepted it as an OK criteria, I am now dubious.) Let's see what others think, I don't have to always be right. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see why you don't think that reference verifies his membership in
WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. His citation record is good [2] but in a high-citation field, so I would prefer not to rely on
WP:PROF#C1. And I have no idea whether UGC Professor at Punjab University (his title prior to becoming VC) is the sort of thing that would count for #C5. Instead let's go with #C3 and #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
My apologies for strongly disagreeing with you, but he definitely does not qualify for
WP:PROF#C1 in Materials Science and Engineering (MSE), the US term for his field. He has 4 decently cited reviews on popular topics in reasonable journals, but not those with the highest impact factors and he is not one of the big names in those topics. He has several ~50 cited papers in decent impact journals (e.g. JPCC), but again nothing original in a high impact journals. (Nowadays even to get hired as Asst Prof you need articles in the top journals.) His publication record would just about get him tenure in the US, but not promotion to full professor at a major university. In his area 50 is notablable, 250 puts your name into the nobel pot. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps I did not word my comment carefully enough to be understood. I am neither claiming that he passes #C1 nor basing my keep opinion on #C1. I am using different criteria.

As for impact factors: please no. Judging someone by whether a few of other people's papers in the same journals happen to have sudden early citation spikes? It's meaningless numerology. If you're going to judge by whether the work is well-cited, judge by whether it is well-cited, not by whether it is well-cited-adjacent. If you're trying to avoid citation counting for something more meaningful, then avoid citation counting, don't just keep doing it but more indirectly. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked not just at the citations of his papers, but also the topics and the journals -- it was not "just counting". For instance his reviews/work on nanotubes is not even slightly close to that of Sumio Iijima or Pulickel Ajayan.

In terms of journal impact factors, sorry but again I strongly disagree with your comments. It really does take a lot more to publish in Science (journal) than J. Phys. Chem. C. Not too far from the difference between a GA and a Start-Class article. Academics, even PhD students and some undergrad look at impact factors, as do Chairs, Deans and funders. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The individual the VC (highest functionary) heading a Central (Federal) public university. Appointed by the President of India after open-applications, search and selection by the Ministry of Education. Similarly, has held VC position at a State public university. I do not agree with the nominator's view to cross-check everything academic from citations, and journal publications as also nominated here, given the flaws and MLM type model of this now discussed far more openly than ever, it is time that we keep academia free and open without any gate-keeping. Non-relevant: There have been many people who have contributed much without joining the feudal/elite academic circles. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 12:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As David Eppstein pointed out, subject at a minimum meets #C3 and #C6 of
WP:NPROF - and might meet #C5. A subject need only meet one of these criteria to justify notability; this one meets at least two. Qflib (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep.
Assuming everything is true, he easily passes the PROF test. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 26 March 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.