Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dipankar Home

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. T. Canens (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dipankar Home

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

No indication (after examing his variuous homepages) that the subject satisfies WP:PROF. The fact that the article is still an oprhan does not help bu to suspect that he doesn't. TimothyRias (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, [1], lists some of the award the subject has been granted. I'm not really at home at Indian research awards, but as far as I can tell they are just standard research grants, and not really anything that would satisfy the WP:PROF criteria. TimothyRias (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 - not a notable person. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:AUTHOR criterion 3: he has "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of … multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" as evidenced by the press cuttings on his website that include full-length, positive reviews of his books in The Times Higher Education Supplement, Physics Today and Foundations of Physics. In addition, Google finds reviews of both the hardback and paperback editions of his book Riddles in your Teacup - Fun with Everyday Scientific Puzzles in New Scientist, although these aren't mentioned on his webpage (possibly they weren't so positive, but that's not relevant to the criterion). The fact that Forewards to his books have been written by Anthony Leggett, Roger Penrose and Paul Davies should surely count for something too. I did also check citations counts for his journal articles in Web of Science: it reckons his h-index is 13, with top 5 articles cited 95, 50, 43, 38, 33 times, which doesn't seem all that impressive in absolute terms, but I'm not sure how that compares to others working on theoretical foundations of physics. Should take into account that his papers only have two or three authors, fewer than typical in many areas of science and medicine. Qwfp (talk) 16:19, 1 June 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) 00:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think to check WP:AUTHOR, I think Qwfp is right in that the subject meets the criteria as an author. Change nom to Keep. TimothyRias (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The popular-press book looks like it's sufficiently notable per Qwfp, and his citation record, though weak as evidence for WP:PROF #1, is enough to convince me that he's not known only one thing and that we should have a separate article on him rather than just merging into an article on the book. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep . The article list is impressively long, but the citations not so greatly impressive: the detailed Scopus results are similar to those above from WoS 81 papers, highest cites 104, 51,31,25,22, h=12. More than half have 2 citations or fewer. But with even one paper with over 100 cites, over the bar. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 14 June 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.