Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atanu Kumar Pati


 * 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 No consensus. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Atanu Kumar Pati

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not sourced at all. Subject missing notability. Educationtemple (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. FNAS meets the criteria of WP:NACADEMICS #3. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply and query from all Editors here and Admins: All right. IAS was established in 1934. Since than tii date there are approx 5000 Fellows of this society. National Academy of Science, India has approx 2500 fellows. NASI has equal number probably. Indian Science Congress may have even more. All together, it comes to apprx 10 thousand Fellows. Will it be OK if I create the article about all these 10 thousand fellows on WP, since they all automatically meet the criteria of notability on WP as per above discussions. And I will only provide a single citation on all the articles, the link to the websites or the directory where its is stated that the person is a Fellow. Some times, I will not provide even that (as in this article), which has got several Keeps in ongoing afd, without a single reference whatsoever in place for any of the claim. My question is: Will all the editors here support me to do this. If any of these 10 thousand articles are sent in afd in future, I will give reference to this afd discussion Please let me know (specially the one who has given a keep here). Thanks. Educationtemple (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Royal Society has had far more fellows. We wouldn't dream of deleting articles on any of them! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will appreciate a direct reply of my question above. We are not talking about Royal Society here. We are talking about IAS, NAS, NASI, ISCA, NAAS and other similar societies and academies of India. More than 10 thousand Fellows and I dream to create article for all of them, just a single line article and one reference (May be nice Photo too). I am going to use this reply as a reference in future afds. I would consider your indirect reply or 'Silence' on this as your disagreement and then your 'keep' on this article will not have any meaning, I am humble. Educationtemple (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah! A user just posted me this article. She is also FNAS. A notability tag was added on this last month. I will selectively remove such tags from this, and all such articles if this Atanu Kumar Pati article sustain in this afd. I am sure users such as would well receive this! Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear this, Educationtemple! Appreciation to everyone who participated in this conversation and others like it, Anasuyas (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - any other reliance sources that is in Hindi? - Mailer Diablo 17:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability under WP PROF is based upon the extent to which the person is an authority, and is normally proven in science by the citations to their peer-reviewed contributions to scientific journals. The criteria of society membership is a shortcut (among other possible short-cuts, such as prizes), on the assumption that people who meet the shortcuts always have such recognition, or they would not have been elected, given the prize, etc.-- and that the committees involved in such honours are better judges of this than we are. It is generally considered here that scientific notability is international. and the standard is international. In this case the question is whether the standards of this particular national society are sufficiently high to prove this. I am undecided on this. I certainly think that it is not as high as the Royal society or the NAS US, and that this non-equivalence is recognized in India as elsewhere-- particular in India, in fact, where major foreign awards are considered more prestigious than national ones. That does not prove that the standard might not be sufficient nonetheless. We are left with two very unfortunate choices: either recognizing the lack of merit of certain national societies, or admitting people to a recognized international standard depending on what countries they come from. I would very much like to avoid making such a general determination here, or at any of the individual AfDs. Perhaps we shouldctry to look at whether it meets the basic WP:PROF standard. If it does, that would be sufficient. that will take some further analysis.  DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Would not be notble by the usual standard. The field of experimental medicine and related fields is one with very high citations. In his case, the 3 most cited research articles according to Google Scholar are 41,39, 27 ,where only the first is in a major international journal. This is not enough in this subject.  DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Per DGG's excellent analysis and subject is not notable  and lacks reliable sources. Now not all the members of every national society or association in the world can be deemed notable merely being a member of a society just because that a member of   Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences are considered notable.    Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment - There are many like this in this batch of afd nominations. Pl have a look at some of them here. Thanks. Educationtemple (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 20:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep clearly meets the criteria of being a fellow of a recognized society. I would love to see many more articles on such fellows. Wikipedia has a severe lack of articles on scientists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF ,except for the claim of WP:PROF is rather weak and the subject lacks the scholarly notability or the high level of citations which is rather poor in this case or on academic achievements and cannot be taken in isolation of merely being a member of National Academy of Sciences and the article lacks sources .WP:PROF states This guideline, sometimes referred to as the professor test, is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. For the purposes of this guideline, an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education, and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. WP:PROF is to be taken in conjugation with this not in isolation of mere membership of a scientific body.Now claim of notability based on mere membership of NAS is not sufficient.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2015 (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.