Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somdatta Sinha

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 later comments in this discussion all agree that the relevant inclusion guideline has been passed, so I take it as consensus reached. Der yck C. 20:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somdatta Sinha

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable figure. Could not find a notable contribution in google search that could justify WP biography. Source cited are poor or employer's website or blogspot page. Notability missing. Claims unsupported Educationtemple (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. Wgolf (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wgolf: Please see WP:PERNOM as a guide to making more cogent contributions to AfDs. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FAILN, there lots of primary sources on from the topic but not much in the way of secondary sources about the topic. per WP:ALTERNATIVE I'd recommend writing a bio in Wikibios. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fellow of INSA (the main national academy of its country) is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C3. We have that rule because the experts in the academy have a clearer picture of her accomplishments than we do, and by electing her have clearly stated her notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fellow of all three main Indian academies of sciences. Clearly meets WP:NACADEMICS #3. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear this, Educationtemple! Appreciation to everyone who participated in this conversation and others like it, Anasuyas (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PROF C3 as above. Her h-index of 16 is lower than I might have expected for those fellowships, but close to the edge for PROF#C1 by itself, but C3 seems compelling, I'd like to see the C3 claims better verified by references eventually. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
commmentNotability 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 ) 04:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the citation record. h factor needs to be analyzed more closely--by itself it same little, because h = 16 could mean 16 papers with 16 cites each , or 15 papers with 100 cites and one with 16--our conclusions would be very different. Further, the citations number by themselves also need to be supplemented by the importance of the journals. Checking Google Scholar at [1]: Most cited paper, published in the highest prestige physics journal in the world, Physical Review Letters, has 116 cites. The second is in Physica A, not so important, but with 84 citations. The third most cited, in Physical Review E, also a very important journal, has 83. The 4th ,with 71, is in a more specialized but important journal . Further counts: 55, 459. 47, 45, .... On the whole, I think this is sufficient, without having to analyze the societies. Note I would certainly not interpret a keep here as precedent--we consider each person individually, and in one of the articles nominated in this group, I have said delete because of the unimpressive record. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.