Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narayan Sadashiv Hosmane


 * 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 the article meets the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Narayan Sadashiv Hosmane

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This biography of Mr. Hosmane looks notable. However, a careful review will reveal that that's not really the case. The page claims that he received the coveted Humboldt Research Award for senior scientists twice. There is no reliable source to support such claims. All the other honors and awards received by him are non-notable. The biography was created by Mr. Hosmane himself. One Wikipedian did protested. Mr. Hosmane is not a top cited chemist and he has used Wikipedia for self promotion. Zenqueue (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. His employer's faculty directory (reliable for this sort of factual data) lists him as "Distinguished Research Professor" and "Inaugural Board of Trustees Professor" . That should be enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PROF tells us that The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon) is eligible for a Wikipedia page. It also tells us that Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability. Northern Illinois University is not a major research university. If he were a Distinguished Professor at a major university, e.g. Northwestern University, your argument would have been satisfactory. However, that's not the case. Also, Mr. Hosmane created his own biography on May 25, 2008 (that's a clear infringement of Conflict of interest). He may have became "notable" because of his Wikipedia page! This is entirely possible. People use blogs to promote themselves or their products. However, if you have a Wikipedia page, people tend to take you more seriously. Zenqueue (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2008 is a long time ago, for Wikipedia. We don't choose to keep or delete articles as a way to punish their editors for long-ago misbehavior, but on the basis of whether the article subject is notable. NIU may not be an R1 university but it is listed in the second tier of List of research universities in the United States. And I would be extremely surprised if NIU paid any attention to Wikipedia in granting him those titles. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, the article subject is not notable. There are so many people who have held a named chair appointment or Distinguished Professor appointment at second tier research universities and many of them don't have a Wikipedia page. OK, even if we presume that NIU didn't paid any attention to Wikipedia in granting him those titles, having a Wikipedia page makes the article subject notable to the outside world. Many Indian websites have published about him (e.g. this was published in 2011), and that may be because of his Wikipedia page. Zenqueue (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Widely cited. Has an h-index of 35 per his Google Scholar profile. I think that the fellow designations (especially in the Royal Society of Chemistry, which elects 0.1% of its membership as fellows each year) would probably speak to notability, but I am having trouble locating a list of fellows from those organizations. That's a moot point though, considering the h-index. I notice that the lead of the article seems identical or very close to the bio on his faculty page. Not sure which came first, but it's probably easiest to rewrite that. There is substantial info in the article even without the text in question. If this subject has been a tenured professor for decades, I don't think we at WP can take credit for his notability. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Although some of his papers are cited, none of them are paradigm shifting papers. There is no reliable source to verify that he is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry. If you were to review those substantial info in the page carefully, you will discover that they are not that substantial. He hasn't been a tenured professor for decades at universities such as Northwestern or Chicago. WP:PROF doesn't apply in this case. Zenqueue (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because this subject has an H-index of 35, doesn't mean that he is notable. It is not that difficult to find researchers who have high H-index but they haven't produced any paradigm shifting papers. H-index has limitations, see . Zenqueue (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - this and this confirms that he was awarded a research grant by the Humboldt Foundation, that he researched under this grant at Stuttgart University and that he co-published in 2009 four, and in 2010 nine, scientific papers. Kraxler (talk) 18:16, 8 June 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.