Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul Kumar (2nd nomination)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Kumar

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

This page appears to be a self-advertisement and certainly falls foul of WP:PEACOCK. It relies on overly on WP:primary sources and WP:COI from the main editors has been suggested in the past. There are multiple maintenance tags which no one seems keen on addressing. In short, it’s someone’s CV and it really shouldn’t be here. Project Osprey (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nom says, this appears to be solely primary source/original research, a list of publications is not a source of notability unless others report that these publications are notable themselves by their ground-breaking nature or similar high impact in some field, or some other aspect of them that together makes it an accomplishment. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Everyone reports their scientific works as groundbreaking, first to accomplish, highly novel, etc...that's just WP:PEACOCK self-promotion designed to get published (if it weren't somehow new or different, it wouldn't get published in primary-research journals). DMacks (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be the merciful thing to do. Its painful to read and probbaly painful for the subject. Some of these articles got started when the mission and style of Wikipedia was less clear. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's rather well-cited. --Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree he has nice and high impact papers these are well supported by ref. He should stay at wiki as good work he is performing I have seen that an anticancer work published yesterday in top reputed ACS journal Journal of medicinal chemistry

J. Med. Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/jm500873e • Publication Date (Web): 08 Sep 2014.remove these tags.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Peterruby (talk • contribs) 05:39, 12 September 2014

— ‎Peterruby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The subject of the article has been ref-spammed into various other articles by numerous SPAs going back at least 5 years, including refs that are sometimes incorrect and/or fluff/proportionally-worded primary research (see my original comment) when added. DMacks (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This appears to be a high-citation field; e.g. even the highly specialized topic of synthesis of polyhydroquinoline derivatives using a Hantzsch reaction (his 1st and 3rd-cited papers) has citation counts 234, 170, 137, 115, 88, 74, ... in Google scholar (searching keywords polyhydroquinaline and hantzsch; the 170 and 74 are the subject's, and are neither the first nor the most highly cited on this topic). Additional evidence that this is a minor and specialized subtopic is that we don't even have an article on polyhydroquinaline. So although the most likely avenue of notability is through WP:PROF#C1, I think the case there is not strong enough to carry the day in the absence of anything else. Certainly the claims in the article of "significant contributions" to wide areas of biology and chemistry appear overblown. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2014 (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.