Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaiti Hasan


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Valoem   talk   contrib  23:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Gaiti Hasan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable figure. Could not find any significant contribution to Indian Science and Technology that could justify inclusion on WP. Educationtemple (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FAILN, while Gaiti Hasan has written multiple papers, she hasn't had much in the way of papers written about her or her work. (that I could find from a search) per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend writing a biography about Ms Hasan in WikiBios but notability is missing for an encyclapedic entry. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not delete. Thanks for informing me of your nomination for the deletion of the Gaiti Hasan article. I find it rather disturbing that as Wikipedia and Wikimedians do their best to recognise that quality includes greater diversity in information (both gender and geography), this and other such articles about women scientists from India are being considered for deletion. As a datapoint you're likely familiar with Educationtemple and Bryce Carmony, only 20-30% of WP articles currently come from the Global South (which comprises over 80% of the world's population) and our coverage of female-related content is poor (with only 1 in 10 of our contributors projected to be women).


 * In fact, this particular article was part of the Ada Lovelace Edit-a-thon held in Bangalore last year, held in order to improve writing about women scientists from India. The list of women scientists that needed enWP articles was created by a group of Indian scientists from a highly reputed Indian science research institution, and I would suggest that their understanding of notability is to be relied upon.


 * Sadly, notability is an issue I face repeatedly as I work on women of note from the Global South in multiple spheres - notability cannot only be established by the publishing of scholarship _about_ people, when there is a systemic bias to publishing that exists both about notable people in the Global South and about women; and of course, doubly so for a woman from the Global South. :-( Notability, of course, is also contextual; for example, not everyone in the world recognises Oreos to be notable when many of us may never have seen or eaten one in our lives! As a Wikipedian, I do, of course, understand that the way we have defined notability has its own constraints; however, in a space of scholarship that is clearly educational - i.e. about women scientists - I would suggest we be bold, rather than be limited in our view of inclusion. I invite the convenor of this edit-a-thon, Shyamal and other contributors like Netha to comment on this nomination for deletion as well. I also invite you both, Educationtemple and Bryce Carmony, to be allies in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission: we cannot achieve the 'sum of human knowledge' if we do not recognise the institutional biases inherent in knowledge systems, and do our best not to make Wikipedia fallible to them. thanks, Anasuyas (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I personally respect your views about women. But one has to prove notability (irrespective of gender) if the bio of living person has to be on WP. Let other learned editors comments and/or add more reliable sources/citations to the article to show some national contributions at least, if not international to pass the WP:ACADEMIC criteria by the subject. Educationtemple (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can sympathize that society doles out notability in an arbitrary way. But it isn't the role of Wikipedia to correct these societal wrongs. certainly attractive actors have an easier time becoming notable then unattractive actors, but the myopic idea to lower standards for notability of different people based on geography, gender, etc. would create more problems than it would solve. Wikipedia has articles on notability it doesn't create notability by writing articles. I would recommend creating a Wiki on Wikia about "Women in science" or something along those lines. Where you can go indepth describing the contributions. Wikipedia is not Atlas carrying the world on its shoulders its simply an encyclopedia. Editing the content is not editing the world there's lots we can do to make the world a better place. But that doesn't change the lack of notability for this article I'm still in favor of deleting it from the encyclopedia.Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I very much appreciate the civil nature of this conversation (and thank you for your appreciation elsewhere, Bryce Carmony!), but I do think we need to think seriously about the rabbit hole that is notability for those who are already marginalised in terms of recognition, not actual notable work. And respectfully, I don't believe that Wikipedians can abdicate responsibility for not recognising systemic bias in publishing; that is at the core of our mission, not the periphery. :-) However, to be pragmatic and hopefully helpful to your dedicated work, Educationtemple, I have also added a section on awards received by Gaiti Hasan. I hope that will fit some of the notability criteria. Many thanks, Anasuyas (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not delete, there are more material about her here,, some bio (she is part of the "Women in Science Initiative" from India) Dianakc (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * the pdf link file suggested above is autobiography. Editors carefully decide whether to take it as reliable source. But agree that she is fellow of Indian Academy of Science Educationtemple (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for this, Dianakc! Anasuyas (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep.She is definitely notable in the Indian context. It is unfair to compare notability as applicable in the context of the Western academic world to someone in India's fledgeling scientific world. An Indian woman scientist with PhD from Cambridge, member of the Indian Academy of Sciences and working in the most prestigious cell biology & biochemistry institution in India? Notable imho. AshLin (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Suggest all of you use either *Keep or *Delete as a standard format so that your vote is counted. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Dianakc and AshLin. You cannot apply the same rules that apply for an American page here. Systemic bias is rampant, but we need to figure a way to work around it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Heads a lab, full professor at a major institution, lots of high impact papers, fellow of a national academy. Molecular biology today is not one for individual claims to glory but large scale teamwork and clearly she is a major node in the network. Also note that there is nothing specifically "Indian" to look for in molecular biology - so looking for "contribution to Indian Science and Technology" is a bit of a red herring. Shyamal (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Per AshLin. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:PROF #3, as a fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Comment I think there are enough keeps. The afd may please be closed by an admin as appropriate as "Keep" at appropriate time. Having said so, I am firm on my reasonings (please read my last comment on other afd here) which apply to this article too. I still do not see even a single Secondary source to support even a single claim within the article!! In my firm view, and knowledge of WP rules, reliable sources are must to substantiate the claims on notability of a subject in the article. Lets see - how other editors justify a keep in the absence of secondary sources to substantiate the claims and keep the article. I also request to please correct the citation No 5 (in the article), since it is flagging in red now after your recent editing. Thanks. Educationtemple (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment, typically these go for at least seven days before the decision is closed. I see no reason for us to tempt fate and bring on the Wikilawyering by closing this one early; nobody gets hurt if we do it by the book.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The argument for "keep" is saying "yes she isn't notable but at a lower standard she is notable" When the voice for "keep" agrees that this is a non-notable topic what choice do we have but to delete? If someone wants to put forward the idea that Gaiti Hasan is notable and has received significant coverage from secondary sources I will entertain that, but any argument "no she's not notable but..." is hardly persuasive in my mind. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Yeah people keep saying WP:PROF #3, and I just don't see that. What highly selective society is this person a part of?-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 00:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. FIAS meets the criteria of WP:NACADEMICS #3. Given the size of India, it is a highly selective society. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - 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 article sustain in this afd. I am sure users such as would well receive this! Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear this, Educationtemple! Appreciation to everyone who participated in this conversation and others like it, Anasuyas (talk) 20:02, 18 April 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.