Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anand Ranganathan


 * 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. After reading the discussion there appears to be a rough consensus to delete. The only viable WP:PAG based argument presented by those favoring retention looks to hinge on the of interpretation of point 3 of WP:PROF. Unfortunately, I find the interpretive arguments presented by those favoring deletion to be generally persuasive. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Anand Ranganathan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I cannot understand about how this person meets general notability guidelines or any of our subject-specific-notability guidelines.

AFAIS, he is an associate professor (which fails WP:NACADEMIC), born to a may-be-notable chemist, (which fails WP:NOTINHERITED) who is incidentally also a run-of-the-mill journalist columnist over news-portals (which fails WP:NJOURNALIST) and got into a bizarre controversy; that nobody bothered about except a right-wing-non RS (OpEd). He is also supposedly a free speech absolutist who eulogizes Ambedkar but those are not pathways to encyclopedic notability or so I believe. Thus, I'm left with his' writing three books, which hardly made any buzz or were any acclaimed (Fails WP:NAUTHOR; I spot a few reviews of a part. book though) and some trivial mentions in media-reports about his being part of a research group (fails WP:SIGCOV).

I further note that he has given an interview to RepublicTv (FoxNews of India) and was an invited guest at a lit-fest. Has trivial mentions as a right-wing thinker but that's it.

If anyone does a GSearch, he/she might be expected to find several mentions in OpIndia. It's a non-reliable source. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The language used by you is clearly derogatory and biased. He is not a journalist, but a columnist. I guess you don't understand the difference. Many similar articles, with much worse citations are still active on Wikipedia, why is this article being singled out, despite having sources such as World Economic Forum He has also appeared on panels in various news channels. There are articles dedicated to his views on mainstream media platforms as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , what SN says below. Also, appearing in panel on a TV is hardly an indicaator of encyclopedic notability. Also, see WP:INTERVIEW. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * all things being equal, what other articles are ike is an argument to avoid in discussions such as these. Just FYII. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have added more sources from mainstream media, coverage in Republic TV and The Hindu. He has won various awards, as mentioned in the article, with credible sources such as world economic forum, confirming the same.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , none of those awards remotely confer any notability. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I see what you're trying to do here. You allow other articles with worse sources to remain on Wikipedia, as it is written by people you know, you will target me if I apply the same criteria here, but will bully me here to find more sources, you have already made up your mind about it. It doesn't matter how many sources I find, whether it is The Hindu, Republic, India Today, World Economic Forum, TED, Times of India. You are going to delete the article.
 * The person clearly appears regularly on TV, with the channel having the highest TRP, has more than a 100k followers on twitter, has written multiple books. Newspapers like The Hindu have taken his interview. But that doesn't matter to you, does it? You wouldn't allow me to move similar articles to draft or for deletion, but will delete this because you have an axe to grind. IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like you guys don't learn from the press coverage.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just going to leave this here.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding his paper published in nature.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also this oneIndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , can you give an example of a worse-written article that we are actively allowing to stay in WP?
 * I know none over here (in a off-wiki sense) and I have no enmity with either you or the subject.
 * You need to understand that WP:GNG seeks significant coverage. You need to accept that interviews are not counted towards establishment of notability, because they are almost-always intellectually independent, as over here. And, an interview in RepublicTV which has morphed into a right-wing-propaganda medium does not do any favor.
 * I would have given some minimal thoughts; if he had spoken over TED; as you claim. But he has spoken over TEDx (which is radically watered-down version of the former).
 * None of the awards received by him are any revered by the professional community or at the topmost tier of the field.
 * Having hordes of twitter followers is not a criterion of our notability. Those numbers are ridiculously easy to manipulate.
 * And, you can nominate any article of your choice at WP:AFD after following WP:BEFORE. &#x222F; WBG converse 14:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So many academics publish papers in reputable journals and you might wish to see our relevant criterion. &#x222F; WBG converse 14:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the awards received by him are any revered by the professional community or at the topmost tier of the field.
 * Having hordes of twitter followers is not a criterion of our notability. Those numbers are ridiculously easy to manipulate.
 * And, you can nominate any article of your choice at WP:AFD after following WP:BEFORE. &#x222F; WBG converse 14:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So many academics publish papers in reputable journals and you might wish to see our relevant criterion. &#x222F; WBG converse 14:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And, you can nominate any article of your choice at WP:AFD after following WP:BEFORE. &#x222F; WBG</b> converse 14:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So many academics publish papers in reputable journals and you might wish to see our relevant criterion. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What about interview given to The Hindu and Republic TV. Authorship of three books, and his work on Malaria and Tuberculosis that got covered in multiple national and international media. His page on World Economic Forum and Observer Research Foundation.. He has also appeared as a panelist in ORF discussions.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "an interview in RepublicTV which has morphed into a right-wing-propaganda medium does not do any favor."-Last I remember, Republic TV was described as a News Channel on Wikipedia. Unless you edit it and replace it with "right-wing-propaganda medium", this argument doesn't make sense. IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to read the stuff that's being thrown at you. Reading WP:INTERVIEW would have given you the answers of your first query. He authored 3 books, so what? There are millions of published authors; do you believe that confers some special notability? I can't get a single review of 2 of his books and that says a lot. Which international media featured him for his work? Every-time somebody claims that they have discovered a noble cure XYZ for disease ABC; media flocks on the person. If you read the relevant sections of newspapers from across the world over the past few years; you will get at-least a few thousand people who have developed the cure to treat AIDS or developed a new drug agsinst malaria/TB/Cancer or made some sort of unimaginable breakthrough. It's almost always an eerie quietness thereafter and years later, they just dis-appear into the void. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 15:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And being a speaker at ORF; does not contribute to notability, either. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 15:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Read Republic_TV and the next section too. I can add a host of other sources. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 15:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, next time I will make sure to take your approval before wasting hours, trying to find sources and write an article, because apparently this gives you a power trip. Coverage from Brookings Institute will also probably mean squat to you, since you have already made up your mind. So let's revise. 1. Interviews (even in national newspaper) don't contribute to notability. 2.Having multiple published papers doesn't contribute to notability. 3. Coverage of research in multiple national and international media doesn't contribute to notability 3. Being a speaker at multiple ORF events, TEDeX or Pondi Lit fest and Mangaluru Lit Fest doesn't contribute to notability. While pages like this enjoy your patronage. Slow claps for your hypocrisy.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many admins who would be willing to wield Special:Block/IndianHistoryEnthusiast for the above personal attack.
 * FWIW, (1) interviews seldom contribute to notability (2) multiple published papers doesn't contribute to notability unless at-least 2 or 3 of the papers are heavily cited (3) coverage of research in national media (I'm still clueless, as to the international coverage) usually falls under WP:BLP1E and is almost always a non-significant achievement in the long-run and (4) speakers at these events indeed do not contribute to notability.
 * MSAR has got multiple obituaries in relevant academic journals; search for them. The current quality of an article is not any relevant indicator of the notability of the subject. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note for contributors and the closing admin: FYI, has been blocked for 48 h by  following the above personal attack.  Given the response to WBG following the block notice, it is clear that there is an ongoing issue between these editors.  EdChem (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete- Nothing there to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia  <b style="color:blue">Talk</b> 13:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Question. The introduction says that "Anand is known for his contribution towards development of a vaccine, for Tuberculosis". This seems to be the only claim in the introduction for real noteworthiness. (I don't mean to criticize the preceding sentence, which appears to be a straightforward description, and as such is proper.) If he is indeed known for this contribution (which we later read "was widely reported by the media"), then what is this contribution, and how has it been portrayed in scientific/medical publications? -- Hoary (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:PROF has been a member of the Indian Academy of Sciences AND MEETS point 3 The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association.Indian Academy of Sciences Anand and WP:GNG.2402:3A80:474:ED80:D9FB:7AD4:C9F7:5 (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does not pass WP:PROF criterion 3 as the Indian Academy of Sciences membership was an Associateship position from 2002 to 2006 rather than a Fellowship. His Associateship page does mention tuberculosis work, so if it had led to a vaccine in the ensuing decade, it is odd that his name is not mentioned in the articles tuberculosis or BCG vaccine or tuberculosis vaccines.  I can find work on characterising the Mycobacterium tuberculosis aspartate decarboxylase enzyme (published in Protein Expression and Purification in 2002, ) and on its crystal structure (published in PROTEINS: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics in 2006, ), and on the interactions of proteins encoded by the phthiocerol dimycocerosate locus of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (published in Molecular Genetics and Genomics in 2004, ).  There are more recent publications in journals including Nature and PLoS / PLoS One but none with substantial citations.  One page I saw indicated an h-index of 7, which is hardly the stuff of WP:PROF-passing wikibios.  I am willing to be persuaded of a pass under WP:GNG or another subject-specific guideline, though nothing I have seen to date is persuasive, and certainly I do not see a case for inclusion under WP:PROF.  EdChem (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * EdChem There have only been 346 associates since it was founded in 1934.Former Associates 346 Associates and there are 66 current associates it is very prestigious in India.Current Associates 66 Associates.He was a member of the elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association .Both fellows and associates are notable nowhere does  WP:PROF say only Fellows are notable it says members are notable and he was a member.Further meets WP:GNG.2402:3A80:454:94F1:C594:3D83:F8D4:6B30 (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IP, criterion 3 of WP:PROF states: The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE). The Indian Academy of Sciences is not at the level of the Royal Society nor the National Academy of Sciences, though it is a major scholarly society for which Fellowship confers notability. If Ranganathan becomes a Fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences, he will be notable for WP under WP:PROF.  You contend that the Associateship he held confers notability in the same way.  Certainly it is selective and elected but it is also an early-career opportunity available for potential or likely future Fellows.  I do not think it is sufficient for automatic notability, but I will initiate a discussion to see what others think.  EdChem (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As promised, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Any and all contributions to that discussion are welcome.  EdChem (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * ?. I don't think notability can be found in WP:Prof and not in #3: maybe WP:Author? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC).
 * Delete No concrete evidence of notability. Capitals00 (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the criteria No. 3 for WP:Prof The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor  Anand's profile at Indian Academy of Sciences. His work has also received significant coverage in media. Brookings Institute, NewsMinute, The Hindu among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 16:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)  — Note to closing admin: IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk • contribs)  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * Delete - there is a lot of stuff swirling around here but he never seems quite to reach the various notability criteria. News reports about the TB thing, for example, are the sort of guff that journalists like to regurgitate from press releases but science is a slow-moving thing and there is no evidence that it has gotten anywhere. Similarly, he has been on the lower rungs of the IAS ladder, which makes it more of a limited scholarship award than membership. He's not met our criteria, as far as I can see, although he may do one day. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not found in WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk).


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.