English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Lazar Mathew

Add links
From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick
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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Lazar Mathew

Lazar Mathew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of sourcing. It looks impressive as the article stands, but it's on shaky grounds (how important is his role? / how important is the organisation? / is the claim even true?) when you try to source it.

We work by independent third party sourcing, especially for BLPs, and this doesn't have them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep -Subject may meet NACADEMIC #3 criteria for being a fellow of Academy of Biomedical Scientists (FABMS); International Medical Sciences Academy (FIMSA); and of Indian Medical Sciences Academy (FAMS). -source. WP:INDAFD-sources. We may always remove unsourced claims from BLP articles and discuss other questionable stuffs on article's talk page. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC) --
Subject meets NACADEMIC #2 & #6 -for heading highest level academic post at multiple major academic institution and winning a prestigious award. -Director of DRDO, Director of Institute of Nuclear Medicine & Allied Sciences, Director of Defence Bioengineering and Electromedical Laboratory, Dean of VIT University and DRDO Scientist of the Year award. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. This assertion is disputed below. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC).
Heh? What the heck! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Given that the first Google hit (and four of the top five hits) for "Academy of Biomedical Scientists" is this Wikipedia article, it seems dubious to me that it is a legitimate and notable scholarly organization, one in which membership is a high honor. Can you supply some evidence to the contrary? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: -It actually is, Indian Academy of Biomedical Sciences. I'm not sure if you are seeing the same search results. When I Google the term, I see this (may be Google search results are influenced by georgraphical location or one's own search history). Please {{ping}} me when you reply. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delete or userify. While winning the "Scientist of the Year Award of DRDO" (sic) and other things Anupmehra mentions might qualify for notability under WP:PROF, there is no reference to verify these claim. As it stands, the article should be deleted as it fails wp:V. The only reference mentions him only as the chairman of a committee and does not support any of the other claims. If this is someone's area of interest, perhaps they could userify it instead and improve it. BakerStMD T|C 16:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Bakerstmd: -There are references to verify to those claims. -See, [1]. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Did you know, receiving a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level and holding a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society are Wikipedia's inclusion criteria? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@user:Anupmehra, looks like you've made some good edits to improve the article. I thus have changed my mind and think it should be kept and continue to be improved. BakerStMD T|C 13:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Much of claimed notability is probably not valid. Please have a look below to see if new findings affect your !vote. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC).
@Agricola44: -I'm afraid you are either not aware of the guideline or having some mis-understanding, that I will attempt to clarify in short below to your comment. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm quite aware of the guidelines – see below. Agricola44 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete. The long list of dubious and poorly-sourced honors makes me suspicious that many of them are made up by the subject (see for instance my earlier comment re the "Academy of Biomedical Scientists", for which most web sources point back to the subject rather than giving any credibility to it as an independent organization. In the face of this sort of apparent self-promotion, even more than the usual case, we need independent sources for verifiability and as a way of sorting out the truly notable accomplishments (if they exist) from the dross. Without such sources, I think we have to delete this. The one source we have mentions the subject, and appears reliable and independent, but is not sufficient to cover most of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
While I would agree that there are not many independent sources, there are few that substantiate the claims of being a fellow of multiple highest and reputed national associations and being appointed highest level academic post at at least two reputed institutions such as, Chariman of Defence Research and Development Organisation, Director of Institute of Nuclear Medicine & Allied Sciences -[2] and winning the highly prestigious academic award Scientist of the Year Award in 1994 -[3]. It is hard to believe that subject was not published in any newspapers, and scholarly journals and magazines for their these achievements (in particular Indian media). We are just having trouble finding them (One reason is that, Indian newspapers do not keep archive for publications before 2000. WP:INDAFD). For their achievements (even if we exclude those multiple associations' fellowship), they easily qualify for a Wikipedia article per NACADEMIC #2 & #6. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Chairman" implies he led the DRDO, but its own WP page says that it is administered by the Indian Ministry of Defense. Was Mathew part of the Ministry? Also, the organizations in which he's a fellow are not "highest and reputed national associations" – see below for proof. Agricola44 (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC).
Do you to discuss a thing at ten places on a single page? I've already answered to your queries below to your post. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I think, I will answer your this particular question and ask you to continue below at one place. There is a post of Director at DRDO -source. User-generated contents are not considered a reliable sources, so does the Wikipedia. Please stop citing Wikipedia as a source, if you've none to prove your personal opinion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. To all who !voted "keep", please consider the following findings. (1) Being a fellow of organizations listed in this article does not have the level of prestige you are assuming. If you examine, for example, the FABMS fellow application, you find that the eligibility requirements are minimal (must be a society member, must have done "research" for at least 15 years, must have a post-grad degree) and that applicants must pay a fee. Even assistant professors seem to be fellows of this society, which implies this "award" is nothing more than a pay-to-play CV puffer. (2) The research record of this individual is not at all consistent with the claims of offices held and awards received. While WoS does show 49 papers, they are not heavily cited: 25, 22, 18, 15, 13, 12, 9, 8 (h-index 8). These figures are characteristic of an average researcher. (3) There seems to be no such position as Chairman of the DRDO. Rather, this organization is administered by the Indian Ministry of Defense and is divided into "establishments" (i.e. laboratories). The subject appears to have been a director of one of these, i.e. a lab head, which, while important, is not notable per se. In summary, much of the claims seem to be WP:PUFF, which probably explains Anupmehra's conundrum of not being able to find independent documentation. The subject is clearly a part of the Indian research establishment, but does not seem to meet the WP inclusion guidelines in terms of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC).
Wikipedia doesn't accept original research, do you have a source for what all you have said in your comment?
Director of DRDO, Director of Institute of Nuclear Medicine & Allied Sciences, Director of Defence Bioengineering and Electromedical Laboratory, Dean of VIT University, etc. -are just more than ENOUGH to satisfy the NACADEMIC #6 guideline (the number 6)..
Again keep in mind that, I'm not trying to establish 'general' notability guideline for that you are seeking significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, but "NACADEMIC", that I'm trying to verify that subject meet the required standard. Anyway, the required criteria is that sources must "exist" not that they are "accessible" or "available" right about now. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on those claiming notability, meaning it is you from whom WP does not accept original research. I do not need a "source" for the FABMS fellow application, I simply supplied it: and it plainly states the very minimal guidelines for "election" to fellow and the fact that the applicant must pay. I also supplied proof that entry-level assistant professors have been named fellows. These facts are very clear demonstration that FABMS does not carry much prestige i.e. WP:PROF c3 is not satisfied. As for "Director" (which is basically lab or perhaps division head), I agree that he probably has held these posts, but that is irrelevant because those appointments do not rise to notability per se under WP:PROF c6. There is a massive corpus of hundreds of AfDs that have established that lab heads, division heads, and such are not the highest-level post at an institution. That would have to be chancellor, president, perhaps provost, etc. As for his research, its impact clearly falls far short of WP:PROF c1, especially as it is in the high-citation field of medicine. What is very clear is that, like the supporting web-pages used as sources, this article is extremely puffed up. I'm sure Dr Mathew is a capable researcher, but he is not notable. Agricola44 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC).
Leave fellowship out. Answer How despite heading highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society doesn't make him notable per NACEDEMIC #6.
Quote from my previous comment : Director of DRDO, Director of Institute of Nuclear Medicine & Allied Sciences, Director of Defence Bioengineering and Electromedical Laboratory, Dean of VIT University. I've provided sources. I'm asking you to prove your baseless opinion, better I say, funny, that, DRDO Scientist of the Year Award is an insignificant recognition.
A formal note : Your lengthy and meaningless comments have discouraged me making further comments. Stick to the point. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There are many hundreds of AfDs that have established that deanship (in this case dean at VIP) and lab director are not the highest posts at an institution. As I said, it must be president, chancellor, or (sometimes) provost. "DRDO Scientist of the Year Award" is also not significant. It seems to be an internal award having no real sourcing of its own. For example, almost all the hits on a standard search for this award return web pages from DRDO itself! I'm afraid we are still left with a lack of proof of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC).
Firstly, Thank you very much for writing a short comment. I read it all this time. Coming to the point, yes, lab directors are not highest post at any institution. But what if a lab is a major academic institution itself? For example, Defence Bioengineering and Electromedical Laboratory and Institute of Nuclear Medicine & Allied Sciences? More, Contradictory to your previous arguments, there is a post of Director at DRDO -source. And this source refers subject as a former Director. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
"what if, what if?" That's all this article has. There's nothing definite. Just how important were his roles and are they sourceable? It's full of claims like "14 years" and "director", but in what role was he there for 14 years? How significant a group was he "director" of? If these posts were as substantial as was implied by the first version of this article, I'd expect to see them making a bigger footprint. What's his publication history too? (I couldn't find anything). "Scientist of the year" ought to have a good citation score, let alone publications (even if just taking credit as lab director), yet he has none of it. Maybe someone more familiar with Indian academic journals would know where to look better than I do, but I can't find this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, let me put it this way, all the institutions they have headed the highest post at, are having their own standalone article and is an indication of significance. India sucks at sources published before 2000. Indian newspapers do not keep archives for their prints before 2000. Google doesn't crawl the Indian sources properly -as pointed out by Indian editing community at WP:INDAFD. And, yes, I expect an impressive publication history and has been able to find few mention on HighBeam published by US Federal Service, -[4], [5]. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
His publication record, and more importantly its impact, has been discussed above. Briefly, the Institute for Scientific Information "Web of Science" database (WoS) is the right source to check biomedical research impact (it does not depend upon country, so India is not at any sort of disadvantage here) and WoS shows that Lazar Mathew's impact (h-index 8) is what would be classified as on-par with an average junior-level faculty member at a research-oriented institution. In other words, it is not consistent with whom we are told is a very senior, very high-level and prestigious researcher who has been active for >30 years and has headed one of India's national research agencies. Agricola44 (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Two things, 1) WP:Systematic bias, and 2) They headed India's multiple national reputed research and academic institutions is what sources do substantiate. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment...and now the "bias card" is played. Let me put this in perhaps a better perspective. Suppose we compare Mathew to someone who should be very similar in terms of research performance, i.e. a "senior" person in biomedical research who has been both educated in India and has worked in India for their entire career (where you are now claiming systematic bias) and who headed a major research institution in India: in this case Avadhesha Surolia (who, oddly, does not seem to have a WP page). Recall that Mathew's research impact is characterized by h-index 8 with the highest paper having 25 citations. Dr. Surolia's citation numbers (likewise obtained from WoS) are: 329, 168, 163, 154, 144, 142, 132, 127, 116,... (h-index 45). Do you see the enormous difference of impact (the latter of which is consistent with heading a major research agency)? How could this be if there is such a systematic bias in the publication of research originating in India? Of course, that's not the explanation. Rather, what we must conclude is that Lazar Mathew had, in fact, a very average and non-notable research career. Agricola44 (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC).
I didn't write that overnight. That's a community consensus. And yes, I didn't read your comments expect first sentence. I'm not going to find subject's publications. They headed multiple reputed academic institutions of national importance, that's enough to secure an article on Wikipedia. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we've reached the end of what you and I can discuss in a reasonable way. I can only sum-up and step away: Mathew was a division head of one or more research divisions within DRDO, has a below-average publication record (not characteristic of a division head), is a fellow of one or more organizations where this honor is very widely bestowed to those applicants who pay a fee, and has won awards (like DRDO scientist of the year) that do not seem to be recognized outside of the organizations that bestowed them. The article's sources are poor, being mostly trivial mentions (Frontline, The Hindu), primary documents (DRDO itself), or web ephemera (e.g. his online bio). In my opinion, none of these aspects satisfies any of the WP:PROF criteria. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, I'm not going to waste my time to read /meaningless/ lengthy comments full of original research. First, you say, "it does not depend upon country, so India is not at any sort of disadvantage here [..]", when I linked you to WP:Systematic bias, you reply, "..bias card" is played". It's YOU who asked me for that to show you. I'm not willing to handle such nonsensical comments any longer.
A relevant comment from ongoing RFA by a long-standing, established and respected editor, Special:Diff/647805097.
They headed multiple reputed academic institutions of national importance, that's enough to secure an article on Wikipedia -per NACADEMIC #6 (see article for details). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable as a scientific administrator. For notability as a researcher , the standard is international. For notability as an administrator, it's within the individual's country. DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Question. David, could you comment more on your assertion "for notability as an administrator, it's within the individual's country"? I'm not familiar with the associated guideline. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC).
  • I presume he means that there is an international notability standard for scientists, but that administrators and directors follow a country project's standards for notability. In which case the bar is likely to be very, very low, much as it is for geographical locations. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but what is that standard, especially for a country like India that has a well-developed intellectual infrastructure? For example, there is consensus for the individual criteria in WP:PROF (e.g. notable administrative positions per se are chancellor, president, and sometimes provost), but so far, I only see assertion from the proponents of the article that a division head is also notable per se in this context. There very well may be another relevant guideline. I'm just trying to find out what it is. Agricola44 (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 17:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Discussion seems to have stalled without any consensus being reached. In reviewing the above text, it seems that the question of notability has been narrowed to whether his position in the DRDO qualifies. DGG, a knowledgeable and senior ed asserts "for notability as an administrator, it's within the individual's country", but I'm not familiar with any guideline that codifies this claim. Might anyone else weigh-in here, one way or another? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC).
    • Comment. The title "director" at the DRDO seems to mean director of one of DRDO's many individual laboratories, i.e. not the head of the entire organization. So this does not rise to the "highest-level position" (head of the entire organization) that would be required by WP:PROF#C6. The reference in the article that claims to source the director title makes this clear: it doesn't actually mention DRDO, but says that he directed INMAS, which is a lab within DRDO. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Agricola's astute analysis. Most of the "keep" !votes are based on a misunderstanding of WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems to come down to whether Lazar Mathew has indeed held the "highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society", and the evidence presented here seems to indicate that he has not, but has instead been the head of a laboratory within such an institution. (I'm open to changing my opinion if I see further evidence, or explanation of other guidelines of which I am not currently aware, eg country-specific administrator notability guidelines). Squinge (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Articles_for_deletion/Lazar_Mathew&oldid=2619502"