Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh Nair

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. No establishment of notablity based on achievement, recognition or fame. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Nair

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

BLP doesn't meet criteria for WP:BIO or WP:Creative. Sources limited to company websites, academic papers, trade publications. Although he has filed patents and published as lead author on academic papers, this is not notable in and of itself. Extremely limited exposure that doesn't indicate a known, significant or broadly recognized contribution. Whoosit (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Whoosit (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing PROF, per 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE). Bearian (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which societies are you referring to? He hasn't been elected to anything. He pays a membership fee to the Royal Society of Chemistry and Institution of Chemical Engineers. These are professional bodies. You have to belong to them to be recognized as a professional in your field (i.e. engineering or chemistry). e.g. As a Member of the RSC he's one of thousands of "graduates (or equivalent) with at least 3 years' experience, who have acquired key skills through professional activity". Being a member is not notable--being awarded an honorary fellowship would be, but that's not the case here. --Whoosit (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching is rather hampered by the fact that the subject's name is rather common, shared with a neuroscientist and a cardiologist who may be notable, but this Google Scholar search seems to pick up the subject's papers and nobody else's, at least among the highest cited. That's a pretty good citation record for someone of this age, but not enough to satisfy WP:PROF criterion 1. The awards listed appear to be postgraduate awards, with the source for the later one saying, "the target group is post graduates who have just completed or are about to complete PhDs", so criterion 2 is not satified. Each of the societies listed has about 30,000 members, so membership is not highly selective as required for criterion 3. There is nothing in the artcile to indicate any possibility of meeting any of the other WP:PROF criteria. This looks like one of those cases where the subject may well be notable in a few years time, but not yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF, WP:N, WP:BLP. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "All India Award for Scientific Distinction" sounds good, but what is it? Google doesn't know, so I have no idea how selective it is. The link given as a reference implies that it is an annual first prize awarded for best paper by the Royal Society of Chemistry, Industrial Affairs Division, Process Technology Group, so its a £500 prize awarded by a subgroup of a subgroup of the Royal Society of Chemistry (if I am reading this correctly). This is impressive, but not that impressive; £500 in a paper competition doesn't scream "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national... level" (WP::PROF #2). The links given in the article are not really very impressive - a photo caption here, a quick quote there, that sort of thing. One shows his name on a paper, but there are seven other authors. A couple don't seem to mention the subject at all. I really don't know if "twenty international peer-reviewed publications and patents" is a high number or not, and WP:PROF doesn't say. Doesn't seem to be very notable or to meet WP:PROF. He looks to be pretty young, so maybe later if he makes a breakthrough or something. Herostratus (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)d[reply]
Delete per Herostratus. Amniguous level of notability at first glance, but doesn't appear to pass our guidelines if closely examined. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The layout is abysmal, but I think there's an article here. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Awards are sufficient to establish notability by current general standards, ANYBIO, etc. We're rapidly reaching an absurd situation where the more worthwhile/significant a person's work in their field is, the higher the standard is for notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:ANYBIO states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." The fact that Herostratus had to dig deep to find what scant documentation exists on a first annual prize awarded by a sub-sub-group of a professional standards association speaks against the prestige of this particular award. £500 is pocket change as academic awards go. The Sackler Prize is representative of prestigious awards for young chemists. It would past muster for ANYBIO. --Whoosit (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The award on which the above "keep" vote is based is not even notable enough for its own Wikipedia page. I can't even seem to find anything online about the "All India Award for Scientific Distinction" online anywhere, and this seems well below any reasonable threshold of notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2010 (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.