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. Consensus seems to suggest that both the individual and the journal are sufficiently notable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Aggrawal[edit]

Anil Aggrawal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

I am not completely sure about this, so I am ready to change my opinion if good resons emerge. I have no doubt he is an expert in his field, but I am not sure he satisfies any criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The sources given in the article seem to be magazine articles or news stories in which he is quoted as an expert about his subject, rather than being especially about him.

According to the article, his main achievement is having founded Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (which I am nominating simultaneously). In its turn, this Journal does not seem especially notable. The article describes it as "one of the most widely-read and popular peer-reviewed forensic medicine journals in the world", but the source given does not say anything of the sort: it is just a survey of websites about forensic medicine.

The main contributor to both article is a User:Anil1956, which is not a problem in itself, but borders a conflict of interest. Goochelaar (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, I am also nominating the following related page:

Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Goochelaar (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please delete the entry for the journal. I find it listed in a few journal listing sites, but it has two fatal flaws: it's listed as "published by Anil Aggrawal," no company involved, not even a non-profit society or a collective. Second, and maybe this is my particluar bias, but the journal's website doesn't exactly scream "professional'. Not notable.Hairhorn (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Warning The link immediately above crashed my version of Firefox. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Really? The front page of the site is actually here. Maybe your browser is allergic to animated gifs and outdated java applets. Hairhorn (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second site you give does not crash my browser (Firefox 3.5.2). Xxanthippe (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep both since they meet wikipedia's WP:GNG guidelines.
  • Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology is a genuine peer-reviewed journal and website that has got good reviews from independent scholarly sources; for example

In keeping with other reviews, the personal web pages provide a plethora of useful information, although often presented in colourful and unconventional ways. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology page discusses in depth a host of unusual poisons including Spanish Fly (an insect poison), boron and ratti seeds. ...This month we draw attention to a recently launched, purely Internet based journal, the Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology. Run by our old friend Anil Aggrawal, this quarterly journal contains peer-reviewed papers on subjects touching upon or related to forensic practice and experience.

— P.D. Lumb, G.N. Rutty, Forensic Web Watch, Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine (2001) 8, 99-100

Although a majority of sites mentioned above are meant primarily for professional toxicologists, there are a number of other sites meant specifically for the layman. One of the most popular is Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (http://www.geradts.com/~anil/index.html).

— Jason Payne-James, Encyclopedia of forensic and legal medicine, Elsevier Academic Press, Volume 3, 2005.

Online journals are establishing a growing presence and a fine example can be found at http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html. This is a journal of forensic medicine and toxicology and although the site design is simple it exudes enthusiasm. The current issue and archives are easily accessible and in full text at no cost. A clear, well thought out frequently asked questions section adds to the quality of the site. This is an excellent example of what a small group of people can do in what is not a mainstream medical specialty.

— Reviews: Netlines, BMJ 2002;324:372

Articles published in the online journal is cited routinely in scholarly literature and indexed in standard academic databases including Chemical Abstracts and EMBASE.

• • The article Anil Aggrawal needs considerable work, but the subject meets the WP:GNG/WP:AUTHOR guidelines as author of multiple popular and academic books and articles published by reputable presses, and as the founder of the Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology. He is often quoted as an expert in his field by independent sources. In real life (well before I started editing wikipedia) I have read several writing and sketches by and about Anil Aggrawal, but I have to admit that they are difficult to locate due to the common name and all the confounding hits because of the eponymous journal. Here are some (random collection) of links discussing his work: [1], [2] (translation), [3] (translation). Abecedare (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on the reviews of the journal: two of those reviews specifically mention it as an informative website, not a journal. To me that doesn't at all help its notability as a journal, although perhaps there are arguments for its notability as a webpage. But if the main entry Anil Aggrawal stays, I would argue for a merge. Hairhorn (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website/journal distinction does not make a difference as far as notability on wikipedia is concerned, but just for clarity I should point out that all three sources specify "journal". The first and third quote already contain that information and Encyclopedia of forensic and legal medicine also says, "The International Journal of Drug Testing is an online peer reviewed journal edited by Mieczkowski. Another journal is Anil Aggarwal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology at http://www.geradts.com/~anil/index.html." Abecedare (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. Aggrawal clearly meets WP:PROF and the journal meets WP:GNG. The papers in the journal are peer reviewed by other notable individuals within the field, so the implication that Aggrawal put together a website to advance "self-published" material is erroneous. Other than what Aggrawal contributes to the journal as its chief editor, the primary content is not his. The appearance of the website is irrelevant in terms of WP:N and WP:V, especially as it is maintained by a physician and professor of forensic medicine and not a web designer. Location (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am ready to change my mind if good reasons arise. Would you care to elaborate why "Aggrawal clearly meets WP:PROF"? Which of the criteria given in WP:PROF would he meet? The article about Aggrawal says that he "is known chiefly as the Editor-in-Chief of the Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology", yet he does not meet criterion 8 ("The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area"), as the Journal hardly is a major, well-established one. Goochelaar (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meets WP:GNG and possibly WP:AUTHOR,too, but here is why I think he meets WP:PROF:

-Introduction: "For the purposes of this guideline an academic is someone enaged in scholarly research or higher education and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement." I believe Aggrawal is notable for being engaged in higher education.

-#2: According to his CV (pdf), he was awarded a WHO Fellowship as well as a Commonwealth Medical Fellowship after nomination by the Government of India.

-#6: According to Aggrawal's CV, he was the head of a forensic medicine department at a medical college in India.

-#7: I believe Aggrawal's journal could be construed as evidence that he "has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity".

-#8: Although you disagree, I believe Aggrawal "is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area".

I think the sheer number of papers and contributions to various articles, books, and other publications need to be taken into account. Location (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Actually criterion 6 seems to be the closest to being met. Perhaps we should have dicussed the bio article and the journal article separately, but a journal which is only quoted fleetingly in columns surveying curious web contents can hardly be considered "a major well-established journal". And "substantial impact outside academia" means, say, inventing an item o writing a book even laymen use and read commonly, not just editing a journal, albeit good and interesting. Goochelaar (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I initially misread #7, so I've stricken it. According to his CV, he has written extensively in works intended for popular consumption, however, I have difficulty determining if it qualifies as "substantial impact outside academia in [his] academic capacity". Location (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bio page - He certainly meets WP:PROF.Pectore^talk 15:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the journal by all means; it is included in all the major indexes in its sibject field,which is the basic criterion, and in Scopus as well, which is sufficient evidence of importance. Many journals start off with individual names and become famous under that designation. Annallen der Chemie was Liebigs Annallen der Chemie when he lived, and the name didn't change till long afterwards. He personally edited it, and it was unquestionably the most important chemistry journal in the world in the 19th century. Similarly there was Poggendorff Annalelen der Physik later Annallen de Physik was the most important journal in physics from when he took it over in 1824 till WW II-- These are the most spectacular, but there are other eminent examples. Even Proceedings of the Royal Academy started out ax a personal publication of Henry Oldenburg, and became famous internationally under his editorship. Many publishers were, and some still are, run by individuals: Mary Anne Liebert, Inc. , for example. The key factor determining the success of a journal is the editor in chief as an individual, and his or her ability to get good papers. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against an editor's name appearing in a journal's title, per se (I can add distinguished examples myself, such as Crelle's Journal). Why are you emphasising this particular point? I am just uncertain about this particular journal, whatever its name. Goochelaar (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2009 (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.