Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovan Sarkar


 * 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. Consensus is not yet notable, despite the h index. The h index is a figure that needs interpretation, and I see others agree with me that we typically apply it in connection with other factors, such as academic position. Most deletes here are actually soft deletes, unless salted, as current practice seems to be that an article can be be recreated without deletion review if there is clearly enough additional information to meet the objections. .  DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sovan Sarkar

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A post-doctoral research associate, too soon for a profile as it'll be a while before WP:ACADEMIC is fulfilled. WP:GNG is not fulfilled now, and the awards mentioned are Ph.D. scholarships or post-doc grants. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Added to Academics and India del sort lists.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Leaning delete - After searching, only found one reliable source (RS) comprised of significant coverage about this person:
 * If additional RS comprised of significant coverage are found, this !vote can change. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at that prior to nomination, it's not part of the print newspaper, it's a content submission section for NRI's. The ToI article also clearly states "Information source: Biochemical Society, Gates Cambridge Scholarship, Sovan Sarkar Homepage". &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at that prior to nomination, it's not part of the print newspaper, it's a content submission section for NRI's. The ToI article also clearly states "Information source: Biochemical Society, Gates Cambridge Scholarship, Sovan Sarkar Homepage". &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If: It is unfortunate that researchers, mathematician are not highlighted equally as an actor, model or sportsperson. The article needs lots of additional references (I added a tag in the article). The article should not be deleted if they manage to collect additional RS. -- Tito Dutta  ✉  20:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Soft delete. Citation record throws up an interesting issue. Subject has a GS h-index of 26 from papers in the field of autophagy. This would often be sufficient to pass WP:Prof even in the highly cited field of biomed. However, subject has been operating as a junior partner in some highly competent research groups with usually a large number of co-authors. There do not appear to be any single-author papers. It is therefore not clear if the subject yet demonstrated that he stands out from the crowd. There may be a case for too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC).
 * GS provided me a h-index of 23, and of the top 10 cited publications five were first author, but eight were large contribution lists. This doesn't appear too different from some related field post-docs at these premier labs. That said, the corresponding author for many of these papers, David Rubinsztein (h-index of 70) is still a redlink, will try and create that soon.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete irrespective of citations and h-index. The salient aspect here is that the subject is still a post-doc, the relevancy being that the work done in such positions is invariably carried-out under the close supervision of the lab director. In this sense, it is not his own independent work, even if his name is first on lots of papers (an aspect of the academic "authorship" culture) and even if those papers are highly cited. Rightly or wrongly, convention honors the lab PI here. It is likely this person will be notable for research results in the future if (1) he becomes independent (e.g. asst. prof.) and (2) if such results then continue to be produced. At present, I don't think we can conclude that WP:PROF #1 is satisfied by someone that is still in a training position. Agricola44 (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Speedy delete If post-docs could all have Wikipedia pages, why couldn't fresh law school graduates, fresh MDs, indeed even fresh graduates, many of whom have published articles? This is a peacock page most likely written by the subject himself under a pseudo-username.  Banish to the garbage heap in a hurry I say.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:28, 3 June 2012 (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.