Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anindya Das

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. ✗plicit 12:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anindya Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

His notability is questionable, WP:NPROF. The page contained major overstatements of his sole significant prize, claiming that it was "the" most significant in India. In fact it is for Indian scientists under 45, and 12 are given each year -- far less notable; I have corrected this. With (Google Scholar) 81 articles, which includes preprints and conference papers, and an h-factor of only 22 he is at best marginal. I suspect that he may have passed the WP:AfC due to bloated claims. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology is the "top national science prize" across " seven scientific disciplines — biology, chemistry, mathematics, physics, medicine, engineering and earth, atmosphere, ocean and planetary sciences". 1

It seems to me what C2 of WP:NACADEMIC says. User4edits (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop overstating the case. The top award is Bharat Ratna. The prize is relevant, but is a junior prize not a lifetime achievement or similar. While, perhaps, he meets C2, he fails C1 and C3-C8 and there are no indications of major impact on the international stage. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. I did not say top prize, again, as I said top national science prize, which I quoted verbatim from WP:RS given at the end.

2. As per WP:NACADEMIC, "Academics meeting any one of the following", and as you said, he meets C2.

3. SSB Award passes a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." (C2, as you said).

Lastly, please, I did not overstate. A bit more of reading before accusing, if possible. User4edits (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel, Karnataka, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NPROF. Award is not the top prize in the nation. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @UtherSRG passes C2 WP:NACADEMIC, you may want to see my reply above. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User4edits is correct that C2 does not require the award to be a nation's top award; the exact wording is highly prestigious academic award OR honor at a national or international level. I have not looked into this particular award so will not comment on that. Curbon7 (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The wiki page for the award itself makes it sound quite significant though. BulgarianCat (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. With 9421 cites on GS a clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Having an upper age limit does not disqualify an award from being significant; consider the Fields Medal. The one on question here is not in the same league as the Fields but still seems to be a significant national-level award, possibly enough for WP:PROF#C2. I don't think the Young Nanoscientist India award 2021 [1] is even at that level, but it adds to notability even if it does not by itself ensure it. And I think the citation record is also strong enough for WP:PROF#C1; two first-author publications with four-digit cites on GS, and enough others to make it clear that those were not a fluke. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pass of PROF by both criteria #1 and #2. Should not have been nominated. gidonb (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2024 (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.