Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhas Mitra (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. On the strength of the arguments: consensus is that he is a failure of PROF, and those arguing keep have failed to establish that the sourcing meets the requirements of WP:N, while those arguing delete have raised valid policy-based objections to the sourcing. As such, the only available outcome here is deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abhas Mitra

[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)

Seems to fail WP:PROF. Previous AfD was done before the standards were established. This is a WP:FRINGEBLP that seems to have slipped in early on and wasn't properly vetted as a biography. Having unique ideas does not give the subject a lock on notability. jps (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Citations, credited to his work, well over 1000+, as shown here at Google Scholar, [1]. Additional coverage by Quartz and Times of India as recently as March 2018 and shown here under a Google News search, [2] and of course not to mentioned the other sources mentioned in that search. Are we sure he doesn’t meet our current standards? ShoesssS ^Talk 19:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A simple check of the citations find that they are to a walled garden of WP:FRINGE theorists such as Rudy Schild. They do not confer WP:NFRINGE. Qz of India and Times of India aren't exactly stellar science journalist publications. jps (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Just a reminder, we just do not take the pieces and parts of Fringe theories to make a point that fits our ideology, but reference the whole policy, as shown above, to give a full picture. You forgot to also show; “…Creation science and Intelligent design – The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it among groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and courts of law give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia.” As stated in 3.1.1 Examples. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is a total non-sequitor. WP:CIR. jps (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy or guideline which states that only scientific journals are reliable sources. Quite the opposite, in fact. If we required every article to only be sourced to scientific journals, 99% of Wikipedia would be gone. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, no one is arguing that only science journals are reliable sources. So what's this straw many you are inventing for exactly? jps (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who said, "Qz of India and Times of India aren't exactly stellar science journalist publications."[3] If you're now saying that your comment is irrelevant to this discussion, then I agree. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't know what science journalism is. Carry on with your propagation of ignorance. jps (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You keep going off topic. The issue here is whether the article meets WP:GNG. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is a criteria that sets the minimum standards and does not say that an article has to exist if the standards are met. In the cases of WP:FRINGEBLPs, you need to question whether those standards are high enough to write a neutral article considering the sources. In this case, we have very poor sources that do not do a good job explaining how WP:FRINGE this person's positions are. The fact that his ideas are wholly ignored by the relevant experts in the field mean that it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to host a WP:BLP on the person who, I might add, has been shown to be using Wikipedia to promote himself over the years and, having been successful for more than a decade, may have encouraged some lazy journalists to write the poorly researched pieces in Times and Qz-India. jps (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well-cited and easily meets WP:GNG. Whether or not the article topic is WP:BLPFRINGE is irrelevant to this discussion. All that matters is that the article's topic has received significant coverage in third-party reliable sources which it does. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's just false. The third-party sources are poor quality indeed. jps (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Nature is a trash rag.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, but that's a primary source you just cited. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it's still independent of the subject. Nature has full editorial control over what it publishes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Reports is a trash rag. You are way out of your element, Donny. jps (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Nature. Who's Donny? Can you please can restrict your comments to only those which are relevant to to this discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you fail to understand that what you actually linked to was Scientific Reports. WP:CIR indeed. jps (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Scientific Reports is part of Nature [5] and published by Springer Publishing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no. Nature (Journal) is a well-respected publication. Nature is also a brand-name of dozens of less-respected journals. Scientific Reports is "an online open access scientific mega journal published by the Nature Publishing Group", which seem to be one of those, which I hadn't heard of before. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further. It's described as a Mega journal, ...much larger than a traditional journal by exercising low selectivity among accepted articles. In other words, publishing in one of these is largely a bolus of hot air.Tarl N. (discuss) 02:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little confusing but from what I can gather, it's part of Nature family[6] and published by Springer Publishing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing, deliberately so. Springer mines Nature's brand-name for otherwise useless publications. Getting something published in Scientific Reports (with an impact factor of 4, a megajournal which is based on the principle of not being selective) is not even in the same ballpark as being published in Nature (with an impact factor ten times higher). You aren't alone in being deceived this way, it's deliberate. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deceived? If you're deceived by Scientific Reports, you're going to be deceived by a whole lot worse. It's a respectable publication, different to most journals in the sense that its criteria aims for scientific validity over potential for impact. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No most Journals aim for both scientific validity and impact. If you pay your money and pass minimal standards of experimental design and argument you will be accepted in Scientific Reports. The journal is regarded as a deposit of last resort.PRehse (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is still a perfectly legitimate peer-reviewed publication outlet. Lots of good scientifically valid research is low-impact. So what if it's not the topic-du-jour in a field? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Means they don't contribute to notability being effectively paid advisementPRehse (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Times of India article is brief but it's an article from a good reliable source which focuses on the subject. I am not qualified to comment on his theories, but I don't think that's the point. Seems to pass GNG pretty easily. Tigerboy1966 20:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India piece is an interview with the subject and therefore cannot be considered to be an independent source for the purpose of establishing notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- The article does not even come close to explaining the proper context of this person's ideas. It's actually a very poor source. jps (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1080 cites on Google scholar is not enough to satisfy WP:Prof in this highly cited field. Trivial self-publicity in the popular media is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There are enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. The argument about WP:FRINGEBLP is odd given that it specifically stated that someone holding fringe view can be notable. Hzh (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fringers can be notable if supported by RS, but in this case they are not. Many of the refs are interviews with the subject and so are not independent sources. Ref #1 in "Nature India" was uploaded by the subject himself.Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

"interviews with the subject and so are not independent sources"? Where did you hear that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because they repeat the words of the subject and so are not independent of him. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

This is talking across purposes. Unedited interviews are primary sources for the purpose of WP:V, but they are secondary coverage for the purpose of WP:GNG, because a (presumably) reputable publication decided to publish a full interview with the subject. GMG ^talk 02:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated above, his citations are almost entirely self-citations, his work is ignored by everyone else and very WP:FRINGE, and he has definitely abused wikipedia for self promotion in the past. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether his theory is notable or not, the author (and article in question) doesn't seem to be. The multitude of citations seem largely a matter of fairly expert self-promotion. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable fringe theorist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, notable fringe theorist, but article needs to be heavily rewritten. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 18:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- Essentially a fringe theorist and fails NACADEMIC squarely.A bit borderline on the GNG aspect but given the editorial quality of TOI (now-a-days) and the patriotic chest-thumping that led to these reports (as to his being vindicated!!!), I'm not satisfied.∯WBG^converse 11:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: those of you who claim "notable fringe theorist", can you please elaborate on where that notability comes from? Because there doesn't seem to be any notability to me, just a lot of self promotion. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The criteria for WP:ACADEMIC states that notability isn't what the subject writes but what reliable sources write about the subject. Ifnord (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2018 (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.