Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monita Chatterjee


 * 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) ansh 666 02:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Monita Chatterjee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears not to meet GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Her Scholar citations don't seem especially high over a long period of time, and the 40 or less cites are much more common than the earliest much higher ones. All GHits are primary (personal) material, and she does not seem to have won any prestigious awards or been inducted into any prestigious professional societies. I'm just not sure that in the absence of anything else, being the director of a lab with five staff members (and only one post-doc out of the other four, and all classified as "research assistants") quite makes the cut. Also created by an SPA with a likely COI, User:Auditoryprosthesis, whose only three edits were to make this article. MSJapan (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. This female scientist has a GS h-index of 21, which just passes WP:Prof in the relatively high-cited field of BioMed. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC).
 * Reply OK, so now that I've learned what the metrics actually mean, that's good.   However, if she is indeed borderline, how do we deal with the caveat in Citation metrics that says GS h-index might be higher than true RS citations?  It seems like it might make a difference here. MSJapan (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Even though citation metrics are adequate (which are more supplemental than for establishing standalone notability), there doesn't appear to be anything notable in sources to write for this BLP. Being the director of a lab (i.e. most any research professor) does not pass the bar for academic notability at all. Everything else is extremely basic and non-notable biographic information. This person may be poised to get coverage in sources in the future, but right now there aren't any independent sources of any significant coverage beyond a directory listing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I've made some cleanups to the article, and added a keynote address she gave. I think that and the citations already listed by Xxanthippe are enough for notability through WP:PROF. As well as notability we need verifiability, of course, and the sourcing we have is also weak (mostly her own cv), but that should be good enough for the factual claims of the article as long as we don't rely on it for anything evaluative. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Administrative Note, this was reopened for further discussion by on July 9.  Thanks,  Nakon  19:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – In terms of our notability criteria things seem to be not so far above borderline but I'll go for keep because we have quite a nice small article that seems to me to be an asset. Thincat (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to what's mentioned above, I'll note she's one of only two authors on several of her most well-cited papers. Sometimes in the sciences a paper will have 20+ authors, diluting significance especially for those not in the first part of the list. That this really represents her work bolsters the worth of her h-index rating for me. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Valid point. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC).


 * Keep as this seems enough to suggest convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not sure about WP:GNG as there don't seem to be a huge muber of sources available but this scientist passes WP:PROF and I think that this is, overall bordeline notable enough for it's own entry.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 12:27, 12 July 2016 (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.