Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultana N. Nahar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sultana N. Nahar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication that this person is notable by our standards. If you are interested in seeing what a resume looks like, refer to previous versions of the page. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The previous version of the article was an unholy mess. That said, she may be notable based on certain research she's done with black holes and cancer therapy that have received a fair amount of media attention, particularly this year. Here are some articles: [1]; [2]; and [3]. The first article kind of shows the beginning, and the latter two show the results. They are pretty much about the same thing, but I included one from India and one from the U.S.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Shows potential for WP-notability in the not-so-distant future; article created too early.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, she's not a professor. She's a research scientist at Ohio State University, but even applying the academic standard, why doesn't she meet "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"? She also seems to satisfy WP:BASIC, which is subsumed in WP:BIO. Is her research not sufficiently established yet, not "significant" enough, or what? I'm just trying to understand where you draw the line.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a subjective call Bbb23. Publication itself, even if refereed, is not enough. It has to make an impact among researchers first, which in the case of this subject I’d bet will happen in a couple of years. As I have been reminded in the past by experienced editors such as DGG, we need to always look at the big picture. As for standards, the best way for you to assess mine is to look at my recent contributions in deletion discussions; several of which were keeps. I can always revise my vote if a convincing argument is made.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately for us in academia, Yurken's point is valid: an influence has to be proven and cannot easily be assumed from having been published. Thus, we have things like impact factors and citation indices and what not. Of course, if one can prove that the subject's influence is acknowledged and cited (but even that's not easy--it would need to be clearly cited as meaningful and important, even if wrong), then notability can be established. Now, the main editor (now blocked) was fond of putting in paragraphs that stated how many publications someone had, but in the natural sciences that isn't even always meaningful, given that many papers have many co-authors, for instance. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a certain irony here about my questioning the nomination. I'm usually the one nominating, and I don't often !vote Keep in other editors' nominations. Not that I'm arguing this article should be kept - I'm just exploring people's reasoning, and I appreciate the responses. I just find some of the most non-notable (in my view) articles are kept, so it's interesting to me to see this article nominated. Maybe it's just a question of who contributes to the discussion and the standards they apply. Enough of my musing. I'll let others contribute and I'll remain on the fence on this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately for us in academia, Yurken's point is valid: an influence has to be proven and cannot easily be assumed from having been published. Thus, we have things like impact factors and citation indices and what not. Of course, if one can prove that the subject's influence is acknowledged and cited (but even that's not easy--it would need to be clearly cited as meaningful and important, even if wrong), then notability can be established. Now, the main editor (now blocked) was fond of putting in paragraphs that stated how many publications someone had, but in the natural sciences that isn't even always meaningful, given that many papers have many co-authors, for instance. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a subjective call Bbb23. Publication itself, even if refereed, is not enough. It has to make an impact among researchers first, which in the case of this subject I’d bet will happen in a couple of years. As I have been reminded in the past by experienced editors such as DGG, we need to always look at the big picture. As for standards, the best way for you to assess mine is to look at my recent contributions in deletion discussions; several of which were keeps. I can always revise my vote if a convincing argument is made.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It's true she is only a "research scientist", but her record at Google Scholar is fairly impressive. Several of her articles have been cited more than 100 times. And as noted by Bbb23, some of her work has been noted in major lay publications like the Times of India. I restored the "research interests" section to the article and added references. If she is not yet a thought leader in the field, I think she is on her way there. Maybe it's a little WP:TOOSOON. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Press coverage of her research seems to say that she is notable. BigJim707 (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Some editors have been removing the AfD tag. In addition, they have been adding incredible amounts of unsourced and unencylopedic material to the article. Just so others are aware, I have reverted all those changes, with the knowledge that there might be some small amounts of material that are legitimate that are being swept away by my reversions. It is hard to accord good faith to such editors, and it is even harder to plow through the garbage in the hope of finding something appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a borderline case, Her work has received at least two bits of reliable media interest; however, the coverage is more about the work she has been involved in than it is about her. Based on the presence of reasonable sources I think the article should be kept. Pol430 talk to me 22:27, 5 January 2012 (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.