Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ketan Ramanlal Bulsara


 * 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. Consensus is that he passes WP:ACADEMIC. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 14:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Ketan Ramanlal Bulsara

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD by another user that was removed by an IP editor. Unfortunately there no reliable sources to discuss in non-trivial ways the subject of this BLP. Primary sources show only that the person exists, not that they are notable. DreamGuy (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Was created by an account that has same last name as subject. The user who created it had a speedy deletion notice for the same page already on his page (which was removed by that account) from 2007 by Pruneau, so a previous version of the page must have been created and deleted at least once before this article. Notice said it was speedy deleted before under criteria for not giving a notable reason to be here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  20:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  20:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  20:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Subject is mentioned in a few reliable sources but notability is not established. Meatsgains (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI - IPs have been continuously removing the AfD template from the page. Meatsgains (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Dr. Bulsara world reknowned neurosurgeon. The basis for addition to this page unfounded. He was elected president American association south asian neurosurgeons. He is vice chair of the cerbrovascular section in the United States. He has published 3 books with significant impact higher education and significantly influenced the field with over 100 peer reviewed publications — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B014:92AF:7D26:BB0A:8906:BD09 (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)  — 2600:1001:B014:92AF:7D26:BB0A:8906:BD09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Remarkable pioneering neurosurgeon. Recognized with Stephan curry as notable alumni from Davidson college in Forbes top colleges — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.124.218 (talk • contribs)  — 66.87.124.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Widely recognized for contributions to technical neurosurgery and incrasing neurosurgical knowledge base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kankkank (talk • contribs) — Kankkank (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - No evidence that the subject meets the specific notability criteria in WP:ACADEMIC or the general criteria in WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep  appears to assign him as "Director of Neuroendovascular and Skull Base Surgery Programs" at Yale,  which is a notable position in itself.   PubMed lists him as co-author on a large number of scholarly articles.  (over 100)    as does Google Scholar.  Clearly notable within his specialty in medicine.  I know we would love to find all articles written by involved editors to be non-notable, but this is not actually one of them. Collect (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article appears to have started as an autobio and is still not very good. However, the subject is notable by guideline WP:PROF c1, as WoS indicates a strong publication record (h-index 19, with a few papers having at least 100 citations). Agricola44 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 17:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 18:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- only the double relist made me jump in to what seems like a difficult decision with some good arguments on both sides, but ultimately I'll trust Yale's decision to appoint as an Associate Prof and the high citation index (along with the good current state of the article) over its growing pains as an AUTOBIO. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - It has been interesting reading the arguments above, as other people are interpreting WP:ACADEMIC much more generously than I have been. I would have expected a requirement for at least a Full Professorship at somewhere like Yale, or a h-index above 30 (or even 40?), or a single paper wth more than 500 (or 1000?) citations. My previous !vote should be interpreted in that context.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment  When Yale makes a person an official "Director" of a program, that suggests he is quite above the  "minor instructor at Faber College" level, indeed. Collect (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. FWIW, I think the double re-listing in this case was pointless, as the research record/impact is clearly conclusive. The h-index range of 10-15 is debatable (often depending upon research area), but in this case it's 19 or 20, which we always have accepted without argument. For reference, Hirsch's association of h-index and various levels of notability can be gleaned from his original paper: Fellowship in the American Physical Society might occur typically for h ≈ 15–20. Membership in the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America may typically be associated with h ≈ 45 and higher...so I think the above conversation reflects some misunderstanding of notavility vs research impact ;-) Agricola44 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC).
 * I understand the Hirsh index (I rejoice in a personal h=32), but does "Fellowship in the American Physical Society" really equate to "an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)" per WP:ACADEMIC? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it always has here. WP needs reasonable scientific representation, not just pop stars ;-) cheers, Agricola44 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 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.