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 and redirect. Closing this one day earlier than usual, as the creator of this article has been blocked by CheckUser. There is consensus for deletion, while redirecting to OMICS Group, and protecting the Srinubabu Gedela page. Alex Shih (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Srinubabu Gedela[edit]

Srinubabu Gedela (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)

Not notable as academic. Might be notable as a businessman since he founded a publishing group, but this notability is not demonstrated in the article, and is questionable (even the notability of the group is questionable). Ymblanter (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has notable international business sources like Bloomberg L.P, The Economic Times, The Hindu etc to keep. Just realised the article was created in 2012 with limited sources. I hope now the article has sufficient international sources and notability. I am adding few more. Genome$100 (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Genome$100 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Genome$100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete, then redirect to OMICS Group and protect. The sources are either about OMICS, or are namechecks, or are churnalism. There's no substantive coverage of the subject himself. The creator (user:Genome$100) is a highly suspicious account, especially given the long history fo spamming of this article by OMICs employees, who are ,of course, sitebanned en masse now. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redirect, and protect per Guy. His only notability is through founding a predatory open access publisher, so it's unacceptable to have an article in the present form that talks only positively about him and his business without mentioning (or only barely mentioning) their predatory nature. But the sources saying that are all about the business, not about him personally, so they would be problematic in a WP:BLP. Also, he fails WP:BIO1E as his only notability is through Omics. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Gedela is the CEO for Pulsus and OMICS. OMICS Group article is about controversial publishing. Moreover, there is nothing about Gedela at OMICS article, why he was started Omics? Who gave initial support? What are the problems he faced when he is doing his Ph.D at Andhra University?. How Stanford University helped for his growth etc. Gedela global entrepreneurial activity in providing jobs to 2000+ employees and interest on startups promoted to create his article. To make the article neutral i kept predatory, trade commission etc. However, all these were extensively covered at Omics article. I am adding more sources to convenience. Genome$100 (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentin addition to above, Acceptable citation counts on Google Scholar [1] (h-index 12, passing WP:NACADEMIC Genome$100 (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not see how H-index 12 (especially counted according to Google Scholar rather than ISI) makes him passing WP:NACADEMIC. There is no way he is notable as academic. The only capacity he can be notable in as a con artist.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have taken the example of Prof. David Eppstein comment On David R. Liu article AfD @[2] based on the Google Scholar and result was keep. However, in Gedela article Google Scholar is one of the measure along with struggles/intentions to start open access journals. Genome$100 (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • His Google scholar citation profile [3] shows max citation count of 56 and going down from there, far below Liu and not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, even ignoring the fact that his work in predatory publishing calls into question the legitimacy of his citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • @ David Eppstein, I hope you are checking the wrong profile. His total citations are 364, h-index-12, i10-index-15 PS[4]. 56 citations are only from one article published in Talanta[5], all the publications are from reputed journals like Journal of Chromatography B[6], Chemical and Pharmaceutical Bulletin[7][8], Chromatographia[9] and book series like Methods in Molecular Biology[10] etc. Genome$100 (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, those are the numbers I saw. They are unimpressive. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      In number of debates few editors taken the consideration of h-index 10 or above. If Gedela profile is not qualified, there are thousands of wiki profiles are to be removed (OR) disqualified to keep at wikipedia like academics Praveen Kumar Gorakavi, Suresh Venapally, G. Nammalvar, M.L. Kulkarni and business like Phaneesh Murthy, V. G. Siddhartha. I am adding a few more sources to Gedela article on awards, philanthropic activity etc. Genome$100 (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      You are welcome to nominate the articles about these individuals for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Though they seem to be notable, in contrast to Gedela.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redirect, and protect per Guy. We are not here to be vehicle for predatory publishers and indeed we need to be wary to keep them out/contained. Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Predatory is not a question here, as the predatory blog author closed his blog without any notice. Gedela profile is qulified to keep or not is the discussion FYI: "Predatory Beall's List", a report that was regularly updated by Jeffrey Beall of the University of Colorado until January 2017, set forth criteria for categorizing publications as predatory.[11] The list was taken offline by the author in January 2017.[12] A demand by Frontiers Media to open a misconduct case against Jeffrey Beall was reported as the reason Beall closed the list. An investigation by the university was closed with no findings.[13],[14] Genome$100 (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per Guy. I don't actually note any policy that says he doesn't deserve an article (BLP1E mentions events, but being CEO of a company isn't an event). However I don't see how to structure an article on Gedela. He's not notable for anything other than managing OMICS, and all coverage of OMICS focuses on predatory OA publishing. What would one put in an article on Gedela? One can find sources about his education and postdoc etc, but it'd be hard to not violate WP:UNDUE. There's no chance his academic accomplishments are noteworthy either. Yes according to Google Scholar he has 364 total citations and a h-index of 12, but those numbers are quite typical of a postdoc. Any article on him would focus more on OMICS than on him, at which point we might as well redirect to OMICS. Banedon (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @ David Eppstein,Banedon As per Bloomberg L.P team investigation (they went to India to investigate as per the article) [[15]] Gedela is from below middle class agriculture family and managing 2000+ manpower company. Gedela used to travel 400 miles to access the literature. The traveling bus does not have bathroom, air conditioner etc and charge is 4$. I am not able to convenience properly. Omics wiki article is an attack article and no where mentioned about Gedela, why he was started Omics? Who gave initial support? What are the problems he faced when he is doing his Ph.D at Andhra University?. How Stanford University helped for his growth etc.[16] This information is essential to the academic and scientific community. Gedela was raised in his village in a mud-walled shack by agriculture family. Like him scholars from developing countries facing difficulty in accessing literature, I am adding few more sources about his awards, philanthropic activities and positions. This type of wiki bio article gives inspiration to the budding entrepreneurs and scholars from developing/under developing countries. Genome$100 (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2017 (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.