Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. Ananda Kumar


 * 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. The article's subject is found to barely meet the minimum standards for notability to be kept. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

P. Ananda Kumar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article not sourced with reliable references, person is not a notable figure in India Educationtemple (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete-Per nom. Though often these names with no first name listed are tough to find to be honest. Still not looking good at the moment. Wgolf (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences meets WP:NACADEMICS #3. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment - 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 also invite all editors who commented on this article to also join this important afd discussion that will enact a statutes about Fellows of selected Indian Societies on WP. Please dont miss out. Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The person is a well-known molecular biologist noted for his significant research contributions. All citations are genuine. The article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.95.56 (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability under WP PROF is based upon the extent to which the person is an authority, and is normally proven in science by the citations to their peer-reviewed contributions to scientific journals. The criteria of society membership is a shortcut (among other possible short-cuts, such as prizes), on the assumption that people who meet the shortcuts always have such recognition, or they would not have been elected, given the prize, etc.-- and that the committees involved in such honours are better judges of this than we are.   It is generally considered here that scientific notability is international. and the standard is international.
 * In this case the question is whether the standards of this particular national society are sufficiently high to prove this. I am undecided on this. I certainly think that it is not as high as the Royal society or the NAS US, and that this non-equivalence is recognized  in India as elsewhere-- particular in India, in fact, where major foreign awards are considered more prestigious than national ones. That does not prove that the standard might not be sufficient nonetheless. We are left with two very unfortunate choices: either recognizing the lack of merit of certain national societies, or admitting people to a recognized international standard depending on what countries they come from. I would  very much like to avoid making such a general determination here, or at any of the individual AfDs. Perhaps we shouldctry to look at whether it meets the basic WP:PROF standard. If it does, that would be sufficient. that will take some further analysis. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Looking at the basic standard, which is the number of citations to the scientific peer-reviewed articles, the result is not straight-forward. Analysis of google Scholar  is complicated because of other people with the same or similar names. Of her papers, many are review articles, not primary work--such papers generally  have much higher citation counts than research articles, and are normally   invited papers, not peer reviewed; they are not research articles and not intended to be, Her most cited paper, in a good specialized journal, ids a review, with  111 cites. The second is another review paper, published in a not very important journal, with  106 citation, Her 3rd is a research paper,  not a review, in a decent specialized journal, & has 64 citations.  Fifth is a review. Sixth, a research paper in a fairly good journal, has 54. I unfortunately do not see any paper in a really internationally famous first rate nonspecialized journal.  But plant biochemistry is a field with relatively low citation figures as compared to some fields, and the proportion of review papers is an indication of her senior status.  It is possible that her greatest notability is as a scientific administrator.  DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Correction for DGG's comment. I think the subject is 'He' not 'She' Educationtemple (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per DGG. Her cite count is good enough. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there is some confusion about who is this person. It has not even been established whether this is a man or a woman. The Humboldt Research Fellow seems to be a man by the name of "Paras Kumar Anand" (Anand being the last name), active in cell biology, see here. The first referene in the article showed a man with a different name, possibly the successor of the subject of this article as Project Manager. The school sites show the school building, no info on alumni. we should try to establish first who is this. Kraxler (talk) 17:45, 10 May 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.