Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajinder Kumar Kamboj

:{{la|Rajinder Kumar Kamboj}} ([{{fullurl:Rajinder Kumar Kamboj|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajinder Kumar Kamboj}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Aside from reading like a promo piece or resume, article fails WP:N. General search did not turn up information of significance. The references in the article include a directory listing from ZoomInfo, press release-type announcements of appointments to employment positions, and general patent information (anyone can apply for patents). Does not demonstrate notability. Taroaldo (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• weak Keep -- but see comment below. Assuming we can substantiate the importance of the companys of which he was the senior researcher.. I can verify the patents, as European patents , using Scirus--it is not as easy as for the US to tell if they were granted. The article says academician--if this means member the the Indian Acad Sci, then he's unquestionably notable. The sources are not really that illuminating for what we need--I'm looking for a conventional cv. A proper search really should include Indian print sources, but there is no usable indexing. DGG (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep If this is kept the name should be changed to Rajender K. Kamboj as there's nothing that supports the use of "Rajinder" that can be found online. I think he just barely meets WP:PROF as his patents show that he's not an ordinary academic. Themfromspace (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I tried to look up whether Kamboj is listed by the Indian Academy of Sciences, but found the confusing situation that there seem to exist three different academies in India: the National Academy of Sciences, India, the Indian Academy of Sciences, and the Indian National Science Academy. Is there perhaps somebody here who can shine some light on this? Which is the "real" academy? Does membership in any of the three automatically lead to notability? --Crusio (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

:*Additional Comment Kamboj does not seem to be a fellow of any of these three Academies. --Crusio (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not convinced he's an academic at all, so I don't see why WP:PROF should be the relevant guideline. If it is, I think he fails it. Shouldn't we instead be looking at whether there are sufficiently many reliably-published secondary sources about him to pass WP:BIO? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The term academician can also be used as an honourary title. The subject is promoted as a "biotech executive". Once he had completed his education he immediately went into the corporate world. As noted in the comment above, WP:BIO should be the relevant guideline over WP:PROF. There is a significant biotech industry in my area and I could point to many biotech execs with doctorates and patents who still would not meet criteria for WP:BIO. Taroaldo (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• comment agree with David Eppstein, that if his publication record doesn't show a significant impact on the research of his peers that he ought then to be judged on WP:BIO. A quick ISI search for Kamboj RK turns up 53 papers, three cited over hundred times. I don't have time now to check whether these are by the same RK Kamboj. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Lupin is [http://www.lupinpharmaceuticals.com/about.htm a US$ 694 million pharmaceutical company]; barely above midsized by American/global standards. By comparison, Merck’s sales are US$ 23 billion (Pfizer=$48B, Johnson&Johson=$63B). As a company representative, the subject’s [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=kamboj+lupin news coverage] is fairly limited, which I think is important to check because even small companies can generate a lot of media coverage. So I think that notability here has to be established based on WP:PROF criteria. I think that this [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_sauthors=%22RK+Kamboj%22 citation impact] may not be enough, since in the most widely cited papers he is neither the last or first author. I don’t think patents are a good basis for WP:PROF-notability assessment.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• commentlooking at the ISI results (& confirming in Scopus): The most cited ones -- with highest counts 280 (paper in Nature_, & 142 (paper in PNAS). are for him just as one of a team, but the highest one for him as Principal investigator is 49 citations, then 48, 33, 30. during this period he was Allelix Biopharmaceuticals, a medium size development company associated with Astra AB,, Eli Lilly, &, Hoechs. The size of a pharmaceutical company is not necessarily its importance--both small start ups & 3rd world companies are smaller than the US & European giants. Nor is working for such a firm necessarily less important than working in the academic world. I continue to think weak keep. (if the high citations were for his own work, it would be another matter- they were for the basic biology of the hippocampal GluR5 kainate receptor; his subsequent work was on drugs related to that, essentially spinoffs of that work. I do not see that it ever led to anything seriously profitable in a big way). Now , this is a problem we've had before: by the standards of India, he's a major scientist--by world standards, not so major. do we compensate for this in order to avoid ultural bias, or do we judge everyone by international rather than national standards ?DGG (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Based on the arguments and facts brought forward by Eric Yurken and DGG. I come down on the side of "delete", because my personal answer to DGG's question just above is that we should apply international standards, not national ones. I have two reasons for this, one of principle, one pragmatic. To start with the first, to me the English wiki is the "world wiki". Standards for inclusion of topics (whether bios or any other subject), should be homogeneous. Related to this is my second reason, that it would become very difficult to apply different standards to different countries, we would have to research and evaluate the national situation each time an article was created or came up for AfD. Adopting such a policy would lead to the fact that, say, a very obscure amateur botanist would become notable just because (s)he would hail from Liechtenstein and the Liechtensteiner Vaterland, which is a national newspaper over there, would perhaps once have devoted a paragraph to this person. Locally an important scientist (because the only one...), but not on a global scale. Of course this is an extreme example, but I think it illustrates the point. --Crusio (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

:*I am not very convinced by your arguments on global notability. Consider this case. Mukesh is a Malayalam film actor. His movies are not distributed globally and he is only a locally (inside Kerala, not even in the other part of India) notable person. He has not acted in any English movies and has not won any major international awards. I doubt whether he has received any international attention and media coverage. Thus on a global scale he may not be a notable person. Based on your arguments, it seems, he does not deserve a place in English wiki. Hope my extrapolation is not completely off the mark.

::PS: No offence to Mukesh is meant. Salih (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

::*I see your point. I guess I'm too "science focussed" here. But I still kind of feel that science, being what it is, is a more international undertaking than even the movie industry. Perhaps we should look at it this way: somebody (like your example Mukesh) can pass WP:BIO (based, for instance, on local news coverage). This can, of course, also apply to a scientist. However, in the absence of enough coverage to pass WP:BIO, all that is left to apply is WP:ACADEMIC. In those cases, we should apply international standards. How does that sound? --Crusio (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

:::I asked because I can agree with the arguments of either position. Let me try this as a possible answer. ACADEMIC is more than one part . The progress of research is global, and researchers when being judged as such are judged by the standards of their community, which is their subject--worldwide. But with respect to education and administration it is otherwise. Non academic administrators are judged by the standards of their country--a national legislature is a national legislature, no matter the size of the nation. similarly, the president of a university. In this case, it would be his industrial position. There is only one subject which seems to be different, which is sport, which I would think international, but where memberships on purely national teams is considered notable. DGG (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

::::To Crusio: What prompted me to comment was your (somewhat general) statement "Standards for inclusion of topics (whether bios or any other subject), should be homogeneous." I agree with you on the point that WP:ACADEMIC should be applied in the international context. DGG also make a point above. The issue is slightly complex. Anyway, I am neutral as far as the Kamboj's notability is concerned. Salih (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• delete I'm with Crusio here. I think WP:ACADEMIC attempts to gauge the impact of an academic's professional work on the world of ideas, the global world of academic conduct. I'm not at peace with the idea that an academic's administrative responsibilities alone amount to notability via WP:PROF (though I know others disagree, and still others view administrative positions as being rewards for particularly influential research careers, and therefore indicative of them). I think if Kamboj is a significant administrator of a WP:CORP company, that it ought to be demonstrated via WP:BIO means. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: In about 30 out of a total of about 90 research papers (Google Scholar), R. Kamboj’s name appears first, but for rest of them, his name is not the last one. All these papers relate to Kamboj’s research career either at Australia or else at Allelix Pharmaceutical (1991-2003) and/or Xenon in B.C. Canada (2003-2008) as chief scientific officer/executive Vice president (Allelix-Canada) or Vice President (Xenon-Canada). In other words, his experience is creditable one from companies of international repute. Kamboj joined Lupin Limited/Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. only in Mid 2008. Thus, most of Kamboj’s research carreer so far relates to his research works in international companies. Kamboj he is indeed a scientist of international fame for which his research should be recognized. His ownership for over 40 patents (applied or issued) is also not a mean achievement. The fact that Dr Kamboj has left a XENON Inc of international fame and joined a smaller India based company Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc......does not reduce his stature as an international research scientist. May be Dr Kamboj has a bigger stake in mind for choosing Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc./Lupin Limted. Let's watch his contributions at Lupin before passing any adverse comments/judgement about this International Pharmaceutical scientist. I would suggest that the article be kept, but should be cleaned and improved by collecting further information about his research career as well as about his family background/early academic career. The comparison of Lupin's sales with those of Merck or Pfizer or Johnson&Johson is a stupid comparison. Had Merck, Pfizer or Johnson & Johson been always of their current size-sales? Had they never been through small and medium phases through their live?. Can one predict if tomorrow Lupin or some other Company of that ilk would not make Merck or Pfizer of tomorrow? For readers's information, Dr Kamboj's research work appears under several names variations like R.K. Kamboj, R Kamboj, Raj Kamboj, Rajender Kamboj, Rajender Kumar Kamboj, Rajender K Kamboj etc. Sze cavalry01 (talk)
• Weak delete I think the previous reviews have done great work digging up the subject's papers and patents, which are nothing to sneeze at. However, I still am !voting delete because of lack of any independent secondary sources that would allow us to write a biographical article. The only source we have of that sort is [http://www.lupinpharmaceuticals.com/26june2008.htm this press release] by his employer, Lupin Pharmaceuticals. (by the way, the Indian background of the scientist is irrelevant in this case, since most of his contributions have been outside India and are of no special relevance to the country, unlike say, those of Verghese Kurien). Abecedare (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• The argument given by Abecedare (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC) seems to be week itself. If one searches on Google schoolar, Google Books, on Google and Yahoo search engines, the notability about R. K. Kamboj is abundantly proved. Kamboj has abundantly contributed original stuff to pharmaceutical research as one can easily see by search hits on R.K Kamboj, Rajender Kamboj, Raj Kamboj, R Kamboj etc. It is true that no sufficient biographic information from sources than the press releases exists, but this is not a valid argument for deletion of the article. Moreover, as one can see, this article is a STUB only, thus it only gives bare minimum outlines on biography for this guy and it also provides scope for contributions from other editors/readers. Therefore, once more I am in favor of keep. Sze cavalry01 (talk)

:*Comment How many times are you going to !vote on this one? Taroaldo (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep'Duplicate !vote . Dr R. K. Kamboj is sufficiently notable to warrant an in article for himself. Hello Dudy how are you??? Sze cavalry01 (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

:*Hello to you too. I'm fine thanks. But you might want to reconsider the reproduction of my sig which you put in your comment above. By the way, that's, what, your third !vote now? Cheers! Taroaldo (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin - I have had to reformat this AfD twice to remove duplicate Keep votes and personal attacks from User:Sze cavalry01. I have now blocked this user until after the AfD is closed. Black Kite 17:08, 15 March 2009 (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.