Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Anandharamakrishnan (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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

C. Anandharamakrishnan

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/C. Anandharamakrishnan
• Articles for deletion/C. Anandharamakrishnan (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/C. Anandharamakrishnan (3rd nomination)

C. Anandharamakrishnan (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)

I believe the previous AfD reached an erroneous conclusion. The journals with which the subject is associated turn out to be predatory open access, and confer no prestige at all. FRSC is not a prestigious award, it is a box-ticking exercise that can be obtained by any practitioner in the field after a few years. There are no independent biographical sources, and the author of the article has no other significant contributions. This article is likely COI, and is certainly based on inflation of credentials and status. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep as in August AfD. Passes WP:Prof#C1 and WP:Prof#C3. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC).

"As in August" does nto work, because it did not evaluate the journals. I just did: they are fraudulent. This represents a material change. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would present an analysis to support your assertions. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC).

• Comment At least one chunk is a thinly edited copyvio from [1]: "His research endeavours are well documented in the form of highly commendable publications in reputed international journals, 2 International patents and 7 Indian patents. He is also the author of 4 books and 17 book chapters published by coveted publishers." XOR'easter (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that fellowship of the Royal Society of Chemistry is not a highly selective honour, so C3 is not met, however I don't understand how C1 is not met. You seem to be saying that the subject of the article publishes in unreputable journals, and while that is a concern, it is possible for a influential paper to be published in a crap journal, what you need to show is that the citations are crap. It would help if you gave an explanation as to why, for example, citations in Food Hydrocolloids, Trends in Food Science & Technology, or Food Engineering Reviews should not be counted towards C1.194.46.226.127 (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Here is my analysis based on the first page of the gscholar citations for his most cited paper:

Extended content

Utilization of bacterial cellulose in food, Shi et al, Not open-access in a journal which supports open access. Stability of nanosuspensions in drug delivery, Wang et al, Not open-access as above. Biopolymer-based nanoparticles and microparticles: fabrication, characterization, and application, Joye et al, Not open-access as above. Nanotechnology in agro-food: From field to plate, Dasgupta et al, Not open-access as above. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies in food industries: opportunities and research trends, Ranjan et al Not open-acess. Electrospinning and electrospraying techniques: Potential food based applications, Bhushani & Anandharamakrishnan, Not open-access in a journal which supports open access. An overview of ultrasound-assisted food-grade nanoemulsions, Abbas et al, Not open-access as above. Fundamentals of electrospinning as a novel delivery vehicle for bioactive compounds in food nanotechnology, Ghorani & Tucker Not open-access as above. Microcapsule mechanics: From stability to function, Neubauer et al, Not open-acess. Potential bioavailability enhancement of bioactive compounds using food-grade engineered nanomaterials: a review of the existing evidence, Oehlke et al. Open-acess.

I hope this dispels the notion that the citations are from predatory open-access journals. "Supports open access" does not mean that all articles are open-access, in fact in many of these journals a large majority of articles use the traditional model (for example Food Engineering Reviews has published 171 articles of which 3 were open-access). If the webpage of an article says 'purchase PDF', it is not an open-access article. Keep per WP:PROF#C1. 194.125.38.83 (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Mentions of the subject are not so prevalent as much as they are expected to pass WP:GNG. There are also issues with conflict of interest and copyrights. Orientls (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I see no need to pass WP:GNG. The pass is of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC).
• Delete -- basically self promotion; the journal citations are from open access journals and thus do not help with WP:PROF. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman What is wrong with open-access journals (as long as they are not predatory)? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No discussion took place after previous relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^unEins^uno 09:43, 8 December 2017 (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.