Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilikere Dwarakanath


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Bilikere Dwarakanath

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Merely being Scientist A, B, C, D etc is not a criteria for a Biography on WP. Article not sourced. External links included such as IUSSTF website etc unrelated. Full of Self praise and promo such a mention about some insignificant, so called "recent" editorial written by him. Notability missing. Educationtemple (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to have some vandalism there under family (which I'm about to remove), anyway-I'm not sure right now but leaning towards a weak keep at the moment. Wgolf (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You know I like to know how true the 150 publications part is. Wgolf (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. As you can see there are no sources cited whatsoever to support the claims. External Link 2 (about papers) is dead. External link 3 about papers is also dead. External link 4 is unrelated. The last link go to this paper. I however did a quick search in pubmed and other sources using some combination of keys. Results from Europe Pubmed Central is this;  and pubmed - this. Educationtemple (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like according to this he has 99 publications (and 1265 citations!) and  lists him as working at INMAS. He looks like he usually uses the initials "B S Dwarakanath" or "Bilikere S Dwarakanath" or also "B.S.R. Dwarakanath". 203.202.246.35 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way 1265 citations are not a great number for 100 papers. This figures average 12 citation per paper. A single breakthrough research paper, if any may have several thousand citations. This itself suggest that the person has not a notable breakthrough contribution to justify a Bio on WP. Educationtemple (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:FAILN, a search didn't turn up any secondary sources establisihing notability. per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend making an article on this content in WikiBios or another wiki, but Wikipedia isn't the best fit for this subject. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 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, Davewild (talk) 19:19, 19 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, NativeForeigner Talk 21:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the section listing his awards and achievements, and the last section showing his public service should be verified before trying to remove the article. They're not at all trivial and I've not seen anything to suspect anything here is wrong, I've even checked 3-4 points. The awards he's won are numerous and stretch from 1987 to 2009. He's also a chairman of the Board of Studies (Biomedical Science, ref: ) at Sri Ramachandra University. If his position is not notable enough then his 6 prestiges must be, where one of them is a fellowship at the Indian Association of Biomedical Scientists (website: ). Also, according to WP:NACADEMIC, it looks like he (mostly) satisfies 2. Here are some quotes:
 * Some lesser significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g., the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1.
 * Also, the page says it's a guideline with these quotes:
 * The criteria above are sometimes summed up in an "Average Professor Test". Put simply: when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?
 * Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.
 * Obviously he's accomplished much. Keep. 203.202.246.35 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is a trainwreck, format-wise, but the subject seems notable enough if we WP:AGF. I also added the VIAF authority control, if it helps. —Мандичка YO 😜 05:50, 9 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.