User talk:Zaze2019

September 2019

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Shyam Wuppuluri, from its old location at User:Zaze2019/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 02:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liance: Very very kind of you! I am very new to wiki and I will be grateful if you could check the quality of the page I am editing and share some tips (if it’s aweful). Zaze2019 (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Zaze2019, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -Liance^{talk/contribs} 02:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shyam Wuppuluri (September 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

As an editor of journal articles, he appears to fail WP:NSCHOLAR.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shyam Wuppuluri and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Shyam Wuppuluri, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zaze2019! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Wuppuluri Reply

The basic tenement of notability is to demonstrate that there is significant coverage (not mentions in passing) in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. References such as the article from the Santa Fe institute doesn't even mention Wuppuluri. Neither does Maths Scholar. In addition six citations in Google Scholar is extremely low - Criterion 1 of WP:NSCHOLAR is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. From which I can only conclude that he hasn't made any significant impact in their scholarly discipline. Dan arndt (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt:

Thank you for your reply. The Santafe article mentions about the volume he has edited. The subjects work are used in as many as 200 universities. www.bookmetrix.com/detail/book/f26782f8-8618-4c4c-84b5-85a3fcf28172#readers

Doesn’t that suffice? Is bookmetrix a good website? Then it has got around 60k downloads that no other springer book has got. Zaze2019 (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmetrix is not a suitable indicator as to whether he is an author of highly cited academic work. An editor is not considered as having provided significant contributions to the work. As I stated previously six citations in Google Scholar is extremely low. Dan arndt (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]