Kardashian Index – Restore. I don't see anybody here arguing that the AfD was closed incorrectly. And, looking at the AfD discussion, I agree that the close was correct, given the discussion that took place. However (and despite the fact that DRV is not, and should not be, AfD Round Two), better arguments were made here why the article should be kept than were made at the original AfD. I suspect that if the material presented here was presented at the AfD, the close would have gone the other way. In any case, the consensus of the people participating in this review is clearly to restore the article. – -- RoySmith(talk)00:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J04n&oldid=628619245
Hello. A little while ago you closed an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kardashian_Index with a decision to delete. You said "The examination and comments made by Bondegezou most convinced me to close as delete." who had argued that it was just a one-off joke article, never to be calculated at all, and was briefly mentioned in new sources before interest died. But I've just noticed at sciencemag.org that was published today a new article entitled "Twitter's science stars, the sequel". It goes on to say:
And now we’re doubling down on our recent list of Twitter’s 50 most popular researchers with a revision that names 100 of the most followed scientists on the social media platform. (See below for that list, or download our updated spreadsheet, which marks the additions in red.)
The first list—in case you missed it last month—was part of a story examining the use of Twitter by scientists, prompted by the furor that had erupted over the so-called Kardashian Index (K-index). This metric, whose inventor says he meant it in fun, compared a researcher’s number of Twitter followers with the number of citations to his or her academic papers.
It goes on to list the top 100 K-Index scientists, complete with photos and details. So there seems to be momentum continuing over the Kardashian Index, which was originally published in Genome Biology on 30 July 2014. In light of the continuing interest, do think that perhaps the AfD should be restarted? --Mrjulesd (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To a certain degree this was a one-off joke, but I believe the correlation of Twitter followers and scientific citations has some merit for investigating altmetrics. I did a plot on some data I had [1] and there seemed to be some correlation. — fnielsen (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a merge if felt appropriate. I made a number of comments on the AfD, please read them if interested. Its obviously satirical in nature, but it is taken seriously enough to have the values calculated in notable publications. "For years, reality has been nipping at the heels of satire. Now, it's finally caught up. I don't need to make this stuff up." (Paul Krassner)--Mrjulesd (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and optionally relist. I think it's become notable satire. Like most such, there's a touch a reality about it as well. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. Here are the sources I found about the subject:
The coverage spans from July 31, 2014, to September 22, 2014. It includes sources from Germany, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
