Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arvind Mohan Kayastha


 * 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   keep. v/r - TP 02:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Arvind Mohan Kayastha

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't see how any of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC are satisfied. There are no independent reliable sources showing significant impact. There are no prestigious academic awards or honors. The closest thing I can find is membership in the National Academy of Sciences, India which does not seem like "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". Muhandes (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 *  Comment Weak Keep. GS h-index of 14 in biomed field: not so good for WP:Prof. Fellow of two National Academies: may pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC).
 * This seems like a fair evaluation. The remaining issue is how exclusive and prestigious these societies are. National Academy of Sciences, India (NASI), not to be confused with the Indian National Science Academy (INSA), accepts about 50 fellows a year and has 1549 Fellows. Is each and every fellow notable enough for an article? I doubt it, but maybe they are. As for the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, India (NAAS) I must admit I did not think a local academy of a limited field (only India and only agricultural sciences) should be considered, but I may be wrong. If one is interested in numbers, the webpage says that NAAS has 512 fellows and accepts 24 fellows a year. --Muhandes (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "local" is the right word to use for an academy that covers a country containing a sixth of the world's population. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is Dr Arun P. Sikarwar, Research Associate at JNCASR, Bangalore (India) (Wikipedia login id - arunlovy) and I myself edited wiki article for ARVIND MOHAN KAYASTHA. I have cautiously read the comments put against the this wiki article. I am agreed upon the comments by Muhandees and at my earliest, plan to make short this article as myself also dont have various weblinks of the matter. BUT I have request please dont delete this article and let it be a short one with valid citation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.144.176.250 (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to improve the article outside the main space you can ask for userfication. the issue here, however, is notability, not verifiability. It has little to do with the article, and all to do with whether the person is notable or not. --Muhandes (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - a member of two national academies, particularly of the National Academy of Sciences, India - IMO satisfies WP:Prof. Nsk92 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - h-index of 14 as per citations gadget. The subject has not done any groundbreaking work in his field. The person is a member is the National Academy of Sciences, India. NAS, India is certainly the oldest science society in India. But it is certainly not very selective. You can apply for a membership through this form. I really don't think a highly selective and prestigious will give out forms on its website. Also, as Muhendes points out the society takes in too many members a year. The person does not hold any distinguished positions at BHU. This article fails WP:PROF in all ways. And I don't see any point in keeping a short article about this person either, as Dr.Arun P. Sikarwar suggested. Regards! &mdash;  Fιnεmαnn  (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * comment i don't know anything about the NASI except what their website says, but regardless of their having an online application form, the rules for membership seem fairly selective.  total membership is limited to 2000 in toto, whereas the USA NAS has, it seems, 2113 members.  i'm tempted to figure out some proportions in relation to the populations of the u.s. and india, but am dissuaded by the different economic conditions of the countries.  &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply I don't think it is very appropriate to compare scientific academies of a developed and developing country. I guess USA NAS would be having a good deal of Nobel laureates, McArthur fellows, and all kinds of people who have actually done considerable work in their field. The Indian NAS on the other hand have people from colleges and universities that are not very popular even in India. I'm not discriminating against the Indian NAS, but I don't think it is very selective when it comes to selecting fellows. &mdash;  Fιnεmαnn  (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:PROF and WP:BIAS. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see how you can apply WP:BIAS to an academic working in a scientific domain. The very quality of an academic is indicated by his/her's published work. If his work was noteworthy, people would've read it. It doesn't really matter whether he came from a developing country. Did C. V. Raman, Ramanujan or Chandrasekhar go unnoticed because they were Indians? And from what I could make out, WP:BIAS deals mostly with cultural bias, in which case I agree that developing countries are often unnoticed. This applies to academics studying about the culture of such countries too. But somebody working in biomedicine? I hardly think so! I don't think a western scientist has to understand the culture of India to judge a work by an Indian scientist. I think the same rationale can be applied while comparing two national science academies. Unless it has produced people who have done good scientific work, it can't be counted as a prestigious or important academy. And as before, I think that the WP:BIAS argument fails here too.
 * comment &mdash; the significance of wp:bias in this case seems to me to be that the subject of the article is a member of two national societies, and that would generally say that he meets wp:prof#3, but nobody contributing to this discussion seems to have any solid feeling for how those societies compare to western ones. obviously we wouldn't be having this afd debate if he were a fellow of the nas in the usa. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * reply I understand why wp:bias was brought here. But I disagree with your statement that two national societies can't be compared. After all, what you look for is the science and published work when comparing two such societies. If you haven't heard of a society then it is for a good reason - obscurity. Do you really think that the NSA in USA or Russia is famous because of the country rather than for work? You should also look into the percentage of scientists from the USA who get into such societies (very less) and the percentage of Indian scientists who get in (very high).
 * comment I may be missing something here, but isn't WP:PROF just a way to measure an academic's contribution to science? I am not aware of fellows of the United States National Academy of Sciences for which there is doubt of their contribution to science (admittedly I did not research the subject in detail, this is based on impression). Yet not a single editor here claimed that this academic made such a contribution, instead we debate if a technical membership is enough in a lawyerish manner. Shouldn't the basic criterion still be contribution to the field? --Muhandes (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea of all of the WP:PROF guidelines is that we don't try to make our own subjective judgement of whether an academic's contribution to a field is important (which would be original research), but follow the judgement of others, whether that is the judgement of those who cite their papers, who appoint them to senior academic positions, or select them for membership or fellowship of highly selective academies, such as this one whose membership is restricted to 2000 out of a population of over a billion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * keep &mdash; per David Eppstein. i hadn't seen wp:bias, so thank you for showing me words for what i couldn't figure out how to say. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Myself Dr. Arun P. Sikarwar has authored the Wiki article for Prof. Arvind Mohan Kayastha. I have once again edited the page with more citations and appropriate information and hence forth I strongly believe that article should remain on Wikipedia as the the person seems notable in science fraternity. He has ample recognition and achievements in science community. I am thankful for frank comments from so many friends over this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunlovy (talk • contribs) 02:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep We have always regard membership in the national academy of any major nation as notable. There's no need to infer from citations--the selection for the NAS has done the determination for us. Unless, of course, we want to pretend we can do it better. The entire concept of WP:N is that notability is determined by outside bodies qualified to do so, not by  the judgment of Wikipedians.    DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment But does not the notability and authority of the outside body come into picture? Frankly, how many people you've heard of are solely from this Academy? You can't argue that this is because you are not familiar with India or its people. There is no "Indian Science" or "American Science", and I don't think the National in "NAS" gives the body a special status. Wouldn't be the American NAS be as famous and reputable if they had called it something else? I guess the Royal Society gives a very good example in this context. And I really don't think being a member of an arbitrary NAS is a good reason to have an article on a scientist. Would you consider an article about a person who is just a member of the Krakozhia National Academy of Sciences as notable? Finally your statement "We have always regard membership in the national academy of any major nation as notable" seems to be a bad interpretation of WP:PROF which only talks about a "highly selective society". So to decide whether the Indian NAS is highly selective we need to have a discussion and look at other factors. Thank you. 115.248.114.51 (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It comes into point--only national bodies count, not state or provincial ones. It's not the name that counts, the names do vary. What counts is the nature: this is the principal national organization for recognition at the highest level of the profession. Krakozhia would not be acceptable, being a fictional country. If you want to challenge some real ones, use real examples. I am not sure that some of the very smallest countries would qualify---those with only one or two universities, of those countries not associated with more than one or two notable scientists.  India is at the other end of the scale from that on both counts.  I think you are arguing that the body need necessarily have the same international status ad the US NAS or the Royal Society.  Those are indeed almost certainly the ones with the very highest prestige, but that several layers down would still be sufficient to confer notability.  Where the boundary line should be drawn is somewhere I'm not certain about, and whether it should be by general prominence or some more exact criterion I'm also not sure about.  (It's not a question of notability of the Society, for in even the smallest countries the Society itself would be notable, but whether the society is so impotant that being a member of it proves notability . My main consideration would be that if it a body in which all people of the highest academic frank of full professor routinely sit, it would not indicate notability. India has many times more full professors in its hundreds of notable universities, than members of this academy. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with you about certain things. But wouldn't it be worthwhile to consider whether a member of this particular society fits the other requirements of WP:PROF before calling it notable? I'll agree that this society is notable if at least 10% of the members (that's about 200) of this society satisfy any other criterion of WP:PROF other than #C3. Also note that if you go by standards the Indian Academy of Sciences is definitely more notable and prestigious. If this person had belonged to the IAS I would definitely vote for a keep. You might also want to compare the kind of fellows in the NAS and IAS for a more clear idea -- IAS NAS. 115.248.114.51 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2011 (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.