Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunil Kumar Verma

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Kumar Verma

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

delete-the person is not notable, citation given do not authenticate this person to be considered for publication on wikipedia

delete-citation #6 directs to his personal page; http://sunil.verma.org.in/ , author just copied the same content from this website, not a credible reference

Delete- most of information given is so general,almost all the university professors/Scientist of North America and developed countries across the globe have way better bio-data, however, only a few are on Wikipedia, I can't comprehend the reason of this article to be published — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder neal (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: This nomination was malformed and was not properly listed

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 23:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. h-index of 8 nowhere enough for a highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
KEEP. *DO NOT Delete. My reasons are as follows:

1. How Many People are Research Ambassador of DAAD? Only 9 in Entire India. See this link: http://www.daaddelhi.org/en/23633/index.html. Dr Verma is one of them.

2. In the 40 yrs of the History of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology only 4 people (from this institute) got the prestigious CSIR Council of Scientific and Industrial Research technology Award. I name all of them: Dr Lalji Singh, now Vice Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University, Jayaraman Gowrishankar, now the Director of Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Dr LS Shashidhara and the 4rth one is Dr Sunil Kumar Verma.

3. The Universal primer Technology that Dr Verma discovered in 2001 (Please see the filing date of US patent 7141364) is being used in entire world with the name DNA barcoding. It was his bad luck that the entire credit for this discovery is given to Paul D. N. Hebert who published this technology with a new name DNA barcoding in the year 2003 (two years later than the work of Dr Verma). Facts are facts and the links given here are clear proof of this. No offense! If any respected reader of wiki has knowledge and understanding of molecular biology, please go through the original work of Dr Verma and the first ever paper of Paul D. N. Hebert. Dr Verma named the this technology as 'Universal primer Technology' however, Dr Paul D. N. Hebert renamed it as 'DNA barcoding'. The term 'Molecular Signature' given by Dr Verma in 2001 for the species-specific signatures of DNA generated by mitochondrial Universal Primers (US patent 7141364) was just renamed as DNA barcode by this Canadian group in 2003. Can anyone let the world know the difference between these two works? In fact, there is no difference and the fact is that it was indeed pioneered by none other than Dr Verma. No need to emphasize that the discovery of 'Universal primer Technology of Dr Verma (later renamed as DNA barcoding' by others) was a discovery not less than the original discovery of DNA Fingerprinting by Sir Alec Jeffreys. With this fact, Dr Verma indeed should be recognized as the father of so called 'DNA barcoding' and this fact should be mentioned on his wikipedia page as well as on DNA barcoding page on wiki.

4. I strongly believe that the respected editors of wikipedia should not only keep the page of Dr Verma but also unbiasedly highlight the above facts on his wiki page so that entire world could know 'who indeed discovered the DNA barcoding' two yrs before the scientist who is popularly known to be the father of this technology. Wiki is not for east or west, it is just for the facts!! Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.170.30 (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC) — 124.123.170.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. Citation counts are too low for #C1 and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to above Comment: approx 140 citations for the work (Please see total citations for first three papers on this link of Google Scholars . His work was suppressed due to ignorance about the facts highlighted above. Once the world know the facts through this wiki discussion/wiki pages, there will be thousands of citations of Dr Verma's original work. This is not the first case where the scientific discoveries have been suppressed knowing or Unknowingly. Lets be scientific and please read the documented proofs before making a comment.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.170.30 (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC) — 124.123.170.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Delete~~ how about the other 8 people of DAAD, none of them is on wikipedia, others even have better bio-data.

Most of the professors and research staff of hundreds of Universities across world full-fill the above criteria, only a few are on Wikipedia. The awards given above in support of this person are not itself so big and renowned to be considered for Wikipedia The article substantially lacks citation which are supporting the information given for this person, for example citation no. 6 directs to his personal page; http://sunil.verma.org.in/ , author just copied the same content from this website, not a credible reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder neal (talk • contribs) 05:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck your "delete". You are the deletion nominator and you are not permitted to !vote twice. Spinning Spark 08:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

very little published work,just 15 papers, here is the link http://www.ccmb.res.in/publications.php?grpid=34, the papers are not even published in high impact factor journals i.e.>5.00. Person can't be considered living legend to be published on wikipedia with such a CV. .The work he is doing is just his job, type of employment, nothing extraordinary. In India, Principal scientist have same pay scale as associate professor

. Regarding principal scientist, it is just a position in research institute and not somebody full in-charge of that research facility. Other senior positions in his institute are several Sr. Principal Scientists,Outstanding Scientists, Chief scientists, Director etc. .Person is not even a group leader in his institute http://www.ccmb.res.in/research_groups.php , he is just a junior scale researcher and a project leader (see other 30 project leaders in his institute). This all is against WP:PROF passing criteria. If he is such a big name scientist why is not being considered even in his work place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder neal (talk • contribs) 16:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC) .SK VERMA can't get the credit of Dr Paul Herbert' work. His name is no where in DNA barcoding, the one he is trying to claim as his own pioneer work.[reply]

Reply to Inder Neal's Comments:

1. Citation No 6 is very well directing to the official website of DAAD AND NOT the personal website of S K Verma.

2. The awards that Dr S K Verma has been conferred are the National Awards of India given by highest Scientific Bodies such as National Research Development Corporation (NRDC), Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) etc.

3. Someone notable not being on wiki can not be a criteria for deleting article for others.

4. Simply STATING "S K Verma CAN NOT GET THE credit of Dr Paul Herbert' work. His name is no where in DNA barcoding" is not a reasonable and healthy argument by Inder Neal (even the spelling of Dr Hebert's name is not correct!)! I have given the clear links to the published documents, patents on USPTO sites, reference to their priority dates etc, which confirm that the technology of DNA Barcoding for species identification using conserved mitochondrial primers was originally discovered by S. K. Verma and Lalji Singh in 2001 with the name 'Universal Primer Technology', two years before than Paul Hebert. I have contacted Dr S K Verma and informed him about this discussion on wiki. Very soon I shall get from him important technical, scientific and popular documents/links to those documents that will further demonstrate that the 'Universal Primer Technology' discovered by him is the one that is indeed renamed as 'DNA Barcoding' by other groups. Please wait...

5. Dr Verma has published only 15 papers, this is true, but some of these papers are extremely novel paper. In one of his research (see link here), Dr Verma and team rediscovered the Pygmy Hog after 100 years and proposed that the original name 'Porcula salvania' for the Pygmy hog should be resurrected! This was accepted by world-wide community and the Scientific Name of Pygmy Hog is now Porcula salvania instead of Sus salvanius (see New NCBI taxonomy here). This resurrection heightened the need for conservation of this rare animal.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.170.30 (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC) — 124.123.170.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete The above walls of text defending the notability of this person actually constitute quite an articulate case for the opposite. --Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how it is an 'opposite' case????? Please read the links to the facts first before commenting. Why the scientific community can not correct itself if something has gone wrong??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.170.30 (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example when you mention that his works have been cited 140 times. You may think that supports keeping the article, but, in fact, it is very far from meeting WP:ACADEMIC#1. As for the rest, WP is not for righting perceived wrongs. If there are reliable sources that report that Verma was cheated out of a discovery, we can report on that. However, we cannot don some original research to show here that this is the case. Sad as it is, if science hasn't corrected itself, we cannot do so either. --Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance. Though, I never wanted to say that 140 citations are a great number of citations! Sorry, if it appeared as so. I just wanted to make a point that the number of citations could have been thousands or even more if proper credit was given to the discovery of Verma.

I will get you the links which will clarify more on this truth.

Can I upload on wiki an original document (original DNA testing report from a US based company) which employed the technology of Verma (as cited in the report itself under the methodology section) and which later became a major breakthrough in entire USA to fight food frauds (See links here - Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4 and many other links that are available on google search.

If permitted, I can upload this document on wikipedia and it will prove beyond doubt that technology that was used to un-cover the famous US fish fraud (popularly known as Florida Fish Scandal) was of Verma (as cited in the original report itself), but the credit for this was later given to Hebert's barcoding technology! I have got this original DNA testing report from Dr Verma, who in-turn obtained it from the link available on the article written by one of the famous and most prestigious press reporters from USA. Alternatively, I can upload it on google docs/or wikileaks so that you could download it and see. Please let me know.

I appreciate though that you in principle agree that the science could have gone wrong in this case, and there is a scope for correction and that if I provide you with such authentic links, these can be reported in Wiki!

I'm afraid that won't work, because such a document would be a primary source. As I tried to explain above, you cannot use WP to prove your point. You need to have an independent reliable source that clearly states this and then and only then can you use that on WP. --Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2014 (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.