Draft talk:Hrishikesh D. Vinod

About this Draft

Please do not delete without understanding what this is about. I am a 50 year old economist with 2 popular textbooks and also associate editor for a well-known scholarly journal. Vinod was my dissertation mentor so I already acknowledged conflict of interest although this was 17 years ago. I may or may not be notable but he definitely is. He is 85 years old. He does not need advertising or promotion. His most important contributions were 50 years ago. His 1969 paper alone has 203 citations which is like thousands of citations today (There was no Internet and significantly less journals and academicians back then). RePEc is very important in economics and he is ranked among the top 5% of economists in RePEc. This is despite his being an econometrician (It is much more difficult to publish in econometrics as opposed to applied papers.) He also has three R packages which I didn't mention in my article. You can ask any expert in this field and they will tell you that he is important. I tried my best but please help me write the entry he deserves. Hendursaga (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

About the Deletion

Dear @User:SafariScribe, @User:Jimfbleak, Being a professor of economics, I know well and also appreciate the concepts of citing and peer-review. So seeing my article deleted multiple times is really frustrating. The individual, who is subject to my article, is definitely notable according to criteria 1 for notability for academics:

First, because he is old, his most important contributions were right before the Internet (an unfortunate time period for him) so it is difficult to find online sources.

In his Scopus author page (https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=6603768691&origin=resultslist), it is seen that he has a total of 1,795 citations by 1,360 documents and many of those are before the 1980s. His 2 most important papers (mentioned in my article), dated 1969 and 1976, are cited 382 times. Having this many citations is very substantial for that time perios as there were much less journals and academicians then. So this has to be taken into account.

Furthermore, the subject of his papers (especially the most cited ones) is econometrics. I think you will agree that it is more difficult to publish and get citations in econometrics in comparison to other, applied fields such as macroeconomics. So this has to be taken into account as well.

Moreover, as I mentioned in my article, he is ranked among the top 5% of economists worldwide in 14 (out of 38) different categories, including “number of journal pages weighted by recursive impact factor, according to RePEc. Now, RePEc is a very important in economics! (You can ask anybody.) So being ranked in 5% in 14 categories alone should be sufficient to establish that he is notable, and that he is highly cited, and he has made significant impact in economics. If you are not familier with RePEc, please research it please give it the proper weight for determining his notability. (It is important to note that RePEc only gives lists for the top 5% groups but he is in fact higher ranked than that.)

In addition, if you are not familiar with the field of economics or econometrics, my suggestion is why don't you ask an authority on this subject? I am sure that any expert on econometrics will acknowledge that he is indeed notable. So this should be relatively easy to do.

All in all, I would really appreciate if you could reconsider your decision. If you cannot change it, give me some clear directions or examples about what you expect to see specifically. I also appreciate your directions about how to proceed based on my above discussion. I am OK with making the article shorter. Also, if you think there are some low quality references, I am happy to remove or replace them. Please help me write this article.

Best regards Hendursaga (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The draft exists and has been rejected by a reviewer as inadequately referenced Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)