Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jyotish Chandra De


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Jyotish Chandra De

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only reference here is a deadlink; even if it were live and verified what was claimed, it wouldn't (by itself) be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Unless other sources can be provided to show that this person is notable, article should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SL7968 08:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Can you please explain why do you think the second Indian principal of the oldest medical college of asia is not enough for passing WP:GNG? SL7968 08:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because of WP:NOTINHERITED. The notability given to the college in no way transfers over to the principals of that college. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a hike and read WP:PROF. By your definition every professor would be non notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. SL7968 08:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Nominator failed to check WP:BEFORE. Subject is Second Indian principal of the oldest medical college of Asia and is way above the notability mark. SL7968 08:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The source does not say that he was second Indian principal and even if he was, so what? I'd already found the archived version of the source using Wayback and it seems never to have mentioned anything other than his name. That is a passing mention. - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I presume you are pointing to #6 of WP:PROF. You have read the general notes just below that, haven't you? In particular, It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject You are also misunderstanding Qwyrxian's point - your interpretation of the NOTINHERITED definition is misguided, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The nomination itself is misguided. posted on the talk page of  that Jyotish Chandra De is "nn, in my opinion" and within 13 minutes!  created this AFD page and reported it here. None of you bothered to check WP:BEFORE and WP:PROF. SL7968 13:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito ☸ Dutta 06:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ABF much? Here's the searches: Google Web, Google News, and . Redoing those searches and copying and pasting them took me under 4 minutes. Evaluating them is equally simple: The web search is Wikipedia, social networking, and sites that obviously aren't even about this person. The news search, even set in archive mode, has 0 results. The book search at first glance seems to turn up promising books with titles about Indian medicine...but those are published by LLC, which is just a paper Wikipedia mirror. So, I see no sources, and the article itself contains only one, which is a deadlink, verifying only 1 claim, and that's not enough to meet WP:GNG. Let's turn to WP:PROF, which I admit I didn't look up, because I'm already pretty familiar with it. But I'll look it up now, and see if I've forgotten some subpart...as Sitush points out, the only one that may possibly apply is #6, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." First, I must admit that I misread this, thinking that the term "principal" refered to the head of a high school or other equivalent secondary school, since that's what it always means in US and its "colonies". So, after looking at it now, I see that if we could verify that he held the post of Principal of CMC, then he meets WP:PROF. So, all we need now is verification of that. The only thing on the linked article is "JC De". For an encyclopedia article, of course, we need verification that this refers to Jyotish Chandra De, especially when we're resting the notability claims one hundred percent on this 2 year post. What is the evidence that this person with similar initials is in fact the person with the rest of the details described in the WP article? (I'd also add that, just like usual, I disagree with WP:PROF making such a broad, sweeping claim that one's job automatically grants notability to supersede WP:GNG, but I won't fight it if we can get verification). Finally, if we do somehow come to the consensus that we can reasonably believe it's the same person, that's fine, but I'll have to then go into the article and stub it down to a single sentence that states only the one position he held, as anything else would violate WP:V. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't assumed bad faith. However you cannot deny that this AFD is triggered by the "nn, in my opinion" comment of . And my arguments for keep were not based on PROF alone. The subject holded the position from 1939 to 1941 (height of WWII) so I will assume that he played a major role during Bengal famine of 1943. WP:V is definitely a problem here (the article creator seems to have sources) but it can be settled. SL7968 14:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "I didn't assume bad faith" - "Take a hike and read WP:PROF". Really?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not stalk my edits further. Your comments are in pure bad faith. SL7968 11:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Paranoid much? I suggest you retract your bad faith comments to me and Qwyrxian.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't assumed bad faith for Qwyrxian but assuming it for you. You jumped in this AFD from another deletion discussion. You have never participated in AFD discussion related to either PROF or MILHIST topics. So it is fine to assume you are here stalking my edits. SL7968 13:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I view all AfD discussions. And badfaith edits. Tick two for you.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So can you explain me why do you think "Take a hike and read WP:PROF" is assuming bad faith? Not everyone (including admins and others) is supposed to know all notability thresholds of individual wikiprojects. Interestingly you made that comment 2 minutes after reverting me. SL7968 14:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't see why "Take a hike and read WP:PROF" isn't assuming bad faith?! I wont insult your intelligence by explaining it then.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please can we drop this sideshow. It seems evident to me that there is a misunderstanding regarding the phrase "take a hike", which Solomon almost certainly intended in the sense of "please read" but Lugnuts is seeing in the sense of "go away". While the latter is the colloquial meaning, I'm pretty sure Solomon has simply not realised that. Cup, tea, storm in. - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Two sugars, please!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts, welcome to WikiProject India! Glad to see you taking interest in the taskforce's articles or maybe just it's members! §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 18:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless... -- Not a living person, and not promotional, but the only source is not currently sufficient to establish notability, it only supports the content that the individual was principal of the college. If better sources can be found to establish notability then could be a sourcing issue rather than a true notability issue. Lesion  ( talk ) 15:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:PROF? Again he was not just a ordinary principal of the college.(BTW, oldest medical college in Asia) In 1939 my guess is there were only 3 medical colleges (SSKM, NRC and this) in the whole Bengal Presidency (present Whole Bangladesh and West Bengal). So it is pretty clear he was notable. SL7968 15:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:GNG, which over-rides PROF and which PROF more or less admits in the sentence that I quoted earlier? - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes I've read PROF, I don't think the one source we have meets this currently. Note that notability is not inherited. Individuals cannot generally be claimed to be notable just by affiliation with a particular faculty. Lesion  ( talk ) 15:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:PROF and WP:NOTINHERITED.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was expecting that. You have proven your incivility hasd no bounds. SL7968 18:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sol, that is ABF and you should retract. I would have asked you on your talk page but there is something odd going on there right now - you seem to have nomninated it for speedy deletion. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See the contrib of User:Lugnuts, he voted moments after I twice reverted his personal attack against User:Anir1uph. SL7968 18:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop Wikilawyering, Sol. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article creator is a relative of De but recent conversation with them has not been productive. I've tried searching under various permutations of his name - J. C. De etc. He is mentioned in as being admitted to the Indian Medical Service as a probationary Lieutenant on 26 July 1913. He had a M.B. at that time. It is possible that he rose in rank to Lieutenant-Colonel, per a snippet view in  and another snippet view suggests that in 1913 he may have been the first person to be awarded an honours degree in Sanskrit from Krishnagar College . That latter might also verify that by 1950 he had become a professor and had a degree from London University but Sanskrit in 1913 doesn't fit well with his age or medical career. There is nothing in the (very useful) customised GNews search facility that  designed and - surprisingly for IMS/Indian Civil Service - almost nothing in the London Gazette. The Gazette records merely the same appointment as mentioned in the BMJ and a promotion from captain to major on 26 January 1925. The problem with the above is that there is no certainty that the sources are referring to the same person and the prolonged military involvement does not seem to fit well with his claimed academic career. I can find no medical papers published by him, nor any record of his professorship or time in London (it is possible that he took an external degree). Frankly, this person looks likely to be a medic-turned-administrator rather than an academic. The BMJ carries loads of obituaries and yet his death is not recorded even in that, nor is he mentioned in the India Lists so I'm afraid that this article seems to fail both WP:PROF and the wider WP:GNG unless someone can verify that he was a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians (they cannot - I emailed them). - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing verifiability. Before we even get to discussing notability, there is a fundamental issue of verifiability.  The lone source we have is so vague we cannot even be sure that this this the same person.  Verifiability is no optional.  I wouldn't object to userfication if somebody wants to work on it outside of article space. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2013 (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.