- 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. 8 JACS with that many citations? Pretty impressive by itself. Tone 00:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Krishna Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can find no evidence Prof. Kumar is sufficiently notable per WP:PROF. He does not appear to meet criteria 3 through 9. That leaves criterion 1 (has his research has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline?). No doubt he has published well, but the guy is not even 40 and is running a lab with only one post-doc and a bunch of grad students. We are are talking tens, not hundreds of papers. And we are not talking Nature or Science either - pretty much all of them are in specialist chemistry journals. Compare his publication and award records, for example, with contemporaries like Phil Baran or Kevin Eggan who have made significant scientific impacts at a young age. I don't see how his impact is any more significant than an average chemistry professor at a decent US Institution. That leaves criterion 2 (has he received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level?) I don't see that either. Other than a few fellowships, he has listed a young innovator award from the Indian Business Club (a student-run organization chaired by graduate students at MIT) and one of 100 young people shortlisted each year for TR100, by a MIT Magazine. I really don't see how either of these would qualify as "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." Delete. Rockpocket 09:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with the detailed nomination. I had actually prodded this myself a few months after a failed search for evidence of notability, but someone deprodded and it fell off my radar. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am grateful for the detailed nomination rationale and for the nominator's courtesy, but I disagree with the nominator's conclusion. The subject served as chair of Tufts University's chemistry department, and has been a full professor there since 2006. There seems to be enough coverage of him and his awards in mainstream reliable sources for him to pass WP:GNG. - Eastmain (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: department chair can be something that rotates among the lower level tenured professors of the department. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 19:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If the subject has "given proteins Teflon-like properties" that would indeed be notable. Input from protein chemists would be useful. A problem here is that there are so many people with the name K. Kumar that it difficult to assess citations. Would the proponents of the paper care to produce the Google Scholar (or WoS) cites for the publications listed in the article? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep full professor at Tufts is very likely to be notable--it is a research university. 8 of the papers were in JACS, the highest quality chemistry journal of all, and one not just in PNAS but featured in it. A number of them seem to have drawn discussion on them specifically as well as formal citations Even in Scopus and in WoS, the name is not distinctive. I found it necessary to get citations separately for the papers listed in his CV, and I have revised the list to show the 10 most cited, the counts of the five highest being 91, 90, 87, 33, 32. This is within the range that shows someone an authority in their field. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I find the statement [a] full professor at Tufts is very likely to be notable to be at odds with WP:PROF. If that is the case, we really should think about rewriting the guideline. Something like 30% of tenured staff in the US are "full professors" and Tufts is ranked about the 100-150th globally. That is a lot of professors that should be automatically notable by the nature of their title and employer. In chemistry at least, that publication record doesn't strike me as particularly remarkable. Most of my colleagues (including assistant and associate Professors) could claim similar achievements. That seems like a low threshold for notability. Perhaps my interpretation of criterion 1 is too strict, but when taken in the context of the other criteria (which are clearly aimed at identifying a much higher level of notability), I think we may be at risk of over-estimating the "significance" of research "impact". Rockpocket 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in view of enlightening information above. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep per DGG. Salih (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. Also, note, that JACS is not an obscure specialist journal, it is a primary specialist journey of basic science research, the journal and its table of contents are read and subscribed to by chemists, physicists, geologist, and biologists around the world to keep abreast of primary research in chemistry. To publish 8 papers in JACS by the age of 40 is astounding. This is a misplaced AfD, by someone without understanding of the field, although I appreciate the nominator made a good faith attempt at identifying the notability of the subject, no matter how poorly placed in the end. There's no question of notability. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well, thanks for your expert analysis of my scientific insight, Mr. IP69.226.103.13. Would you consider a scientist who has published in Cell (journal) and Nature (journal) at an institute ranked, globally, in the top 5 for chemistry to have "a suitable understanding of the field"? Why is it, no matter how civilized and focused on content one tries to keep these discussions, someone always has to comment on the contributor? Rockpocket 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- this is intended as a general comment on subject experts in relation to articles like this. Though one might have expected otherwise, I have frequently observed that academic experts at Wikipedia in discussing other people in the same field, they tend to use a particularly high standard of notability (one might have expected otherwise). I see this bias in myself--I have been consistently more reluctant to consider librarians (and libraries) notable in AfD discussions than is the consensus. It's an interesting phenomenon, that I have not figured out. It could sometimes be that outsiders are impressed by relatively mediocre accomplishments, but it also could be that when we are very close to a subject tend to judge by our own views, not objective considerations. Experts are useful in this discussion in explaining the importance or relevance or degree of acceptance of particular work, but in judging people over all a more general view is probably more reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That may well be the case, its an intriguing observation. Drawing from my own experience, its probably only AfD nominations, or notability issues I have with academics that have even been declined by community consensus (as this is likely to be, which as absolutely fine. See also Claus Wedekind: I remain amazed that he is considered scientifically notable). I guess familiarity with a subject, and perhaps more so those who are involved in it, may diminish its impact in ones eyes. I guess this is why we should value constructive discussions such as this one (IP69.226.103.13's trenchancy notwithstanding). I am becoming more convinced though, if the opinions expressed here are typical of the community, WP:PROF could do with some revision - or at least clarification. Rockpocket 09:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Claus Wedekind has higher citations than this subject so it seems that he has been noted indeed. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Professors in the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, math) are easy targets for deletion. Their primary articles are incomprehensible to the majority of wikipedia editors, and most are published in the leading journals of their field, such as the Journal of the American Chemical Society for pure science in chemistry, rather than in the leading science journals. Editors don't know what the leading journals in each science are. The recognize only Science, Nature and Cell as the leading journals of the sciences in general. In physics wikipedia has editors who are making up physics, putting it in articles, and getting away with it. There's no way to stop them-I've tried and been fought down. If it were badly written pseudoscience, I could get wikipedia editors to correct the articles. But, an obscure area of physics, and it looks like the sources, even if it's pure garbage, it stays in wikipedia. I still send articles to colleagues for laughs. We used one physics article for a roast this year. How can this same group of editors judge the notability of a physics or chemistry or math professor? Some editors get tired of the anti-science stance of wikipedia and wish deletionists would focus on pokeman cards or anything but professors for a change. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 21:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A good place to start would be to stop referring to other editors as deletionists because they happen to disagree with you in some instances. Occasionally offering a reasoned rationale for deletion based on a guideline does not a deletionist make. Rockpocket 22:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And which of these was a "reasoned rationale for deletion based on a guideline:"
- "No doubt he has published well, but the guy is not even 40 and is running a lab with only one post-doc and a bunch of grad students. We are are talking tens, not hundreds of papers."
- "Published well?" "under 40?" "only one post-doc and a bunch of grad students?" or "tens, not hundreds of papers?" Please link to the specific guideline that lists well-published, under 40, only one post-doc or specifically less than hundreds of papers as a guideline for deletion. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 22:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD discussions work best when one expresses one's opinion respectfully, then lets it stand or fall on its merits. We don't gain much from the disparaging or haranguing of others. Something you might consider, as you gain more Wiki-experience. Rockpocket 23:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, none of these are your "reasoned rationale for deletion based upon a guideline?" Is something else in your nomination? You can withdraw a nomination, you know. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 23:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD discussions work best when one expresses one's opinion respectfully, then lets it stand or fall on its merits. We don't gain much from the disparaging or haranguing of others. Something you might consider, as you gain more Wiki-experience. Rockpocket 23:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And which of these was a "reasoned rationale for deletion based on a guideline:"
- A good place to start would be to stop referring to other editors as deletionists because they happen to disagree with you in some instances. Occasionally offering a reasoned rationale for deletion based on a guideline does not a deletionist make. Rockpocket 22:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Professors in the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, math) are easy targets for deletion. Their primary articles are incomprehensible to the majority of wikipedia editors, and most are published in the leading journals of their field, such as the Journal of the American Chemical Society for pure science in chemistry, rather than in the leading science journals. Editors don't know what the leading journals in each science are. The recognize only Science, Nature and Cell as the leading journals of the sciences in general. In physics wikipedia has editors who are making up physics, putting it in articles, and getting away with it. There's no way to stop them-I've tried and been fought down. If it were badly written pseudoscience, I could get wikipedia editors to correct the articles. But, an obscure area of physics, and it looks like the sources, even if it's pure garbage, it stays in wikipedia. I still send articles to colleagues for laughs. We used one physics article for a roast this year. How can this same group of editors judge the notability of a physics or chemistry or math professor? Some editors get tired of the anti-science stance of wikipedia and wish deletionists would focus on pokeman cards or anything but professors for a change. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 21:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Claus Wedekind has higher citations than this subject so it seems that he has been noted indeed. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- That may well be the case, its an intriguing observation. Drawing from my own experience, its probably only AfD nominations, or notability issues I have with academics that have even been declined by community consensus (as this is likely to be, which as absolutely fine. See also Claus Wedekind: I remain amazed that he is considered scientifically notable). I guess familiarity with a subject, and perhaps more so those who are involved in it, may diminish its impact in ones eyes. I guess this is why we should value constructive discussions such as this one (IP69.226.103.13's trenchancy notwithstanding). I am becoming more convinced though, if the opinions expressed here are typical of the community, WP:PROF could do with some revision - or at least clarification. Rockpocket 09:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- this is intended as a general comment on subject experts in relation to articles like this. Though one might have expected otherwise, I have frequently observed that academic experts at Wikipedia in discussing other people in the same field, they tend to use a particularly high standard of notability (one might have expected otherwise). I see this bias in myself--I have been consistently more reluctant to consider librarians (and libraries) notable in AfD discussions than is the consensus. It's an interesting phenomenon, that I have not figured out. It could sometimes be that outsiders are impressed by relatively mediocre accomplishments, but it also could be that when we are very close to a subject tend to judge by our own views, not objective considerations. Experts are useful in this discussion in explaining the importance or relevance or degree of acceptance of particular work, but in judging people over all a more general view is probably more reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because of his position and his scientific contributions. --Kmw2700 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2010 (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.