Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. B. Buckshey

Add links
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 delete, without prejudice against refunding to draft through the usual channels, if editors think that the deficiencies identified can be fixed there. BD2412 T 17:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P. B. Buckshey

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

P. B. Buckshey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PROF -- I am unable to find any highly cited work that shows him an influence on his field. The only claim to notability is the Padma Shri, but this is a 4th level award, and if his career is representative, is routine for people in administrative positions.

There are many other individuals in medicine in the same situation-- see . I am nominating two other individuals, considering this and the adjacent AfDs as test cases. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Padma Shri is a fourth level civilian award in India, a country of over 1.35 billion people, and the total number of awardees is only 2840 people in its history of 65 years. Another claim of the subject of the article to notability is that he served as the honorary physician to three Indian Presidents. The generally agreed norm is that if a subject satisfies one of the several criteria of notability, we keep the article in. Here, the subject satisfies WP:ANYBIO and applying another criterion is not called for. Further, WP:PROF does not apply here as the subject cannot be termed as an academic in the true sense of the term. Another valid point to note is that the WP:PROF advises This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 07:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 07:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (I've gandered at this as jojo@nthony/Tachs is on my watchlist probably from a long gone AFD/DRV). I've rescued various dead links to see what they but roughly speaking they mostly seem to be of directory entries all the information of note seems to be at [1] but maybe the best bits didn't make the article. The "Rajiv Gandhi Excellence Award 1994 for outstanding achivements in Pyschiatry & Neurology" may be relevant and I'd wonder exactly what Colombo Plan Fellowship meant (maybe a tad here [2]. I confess to being unimpressed by awards unless more solid reasons for the awards are given. I'd also not the appointment here: [3]. There a little about him on this ppt ... indirectly seemls to imply he has died (but by no means certain) [4]. Very likely associated with the "Buckshey Award" [5] which also has glimpse mention on 978-1600218569 P.216. Possibly not quite enough demonstrable at present but access to 1950s to early 2000s online can be patchy.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning keep but it is very tight. He seem through the middle part of the transition of mental health provisioning in Dehli and seems held in high regard by the local Delhi Psychiatric Society. A good article on the HMD would be better but we dont have it and a couple more dates on his career. I've worked some things roughly into the article but it needs a tidy and I've lost the refs I need for the cn's. Unless there is some substance and story behind awards to explain why they are given I'd probably lean delete. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating my comment elsewhere, awards are given in many countries in the East and the West, based on political connections and India is no exception. But that should not stand in the way of impartially assessing an honour. There were people who thought the Nobel Prize for Literature given to Bob Dylan was an indiscretion, but that does not tarnish the highest literary honour in the world.--jojo@nthony (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing that we obtain a list of all the fourth-level Padma awardees since 1954 and create Wikpedia articles on each of them? That would be the unmistakable inference of your argument. Like this gentleman, nothing else would be needed by way of establishing notability. If you have sources other than the fluff the article is currently bedaubed with, please produce them here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been created with the premise that, Padma Shri, being a major award, makes P. B. Buckshey, a recipient of the award, notable per WP:ANYBIO. I am semi-retired from Wikipedia and got involved in this discussion only after getting the notification regarding the deletion process. During my 14 years or more here at Wikipedia, I have seen someone developing the article in due course, like many of the stubs before, if the stub does not get deleted before that. --jojo@nthony (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tachs: This claim is virtually key to your defence and I would hope closes/relists give guidance. My best albeit imperfect thinking on this is given on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Prakash Singh test case. This article does not rely on that award in my opinion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per my comment above. While the subject has been awarded a Padma Shri the article is not majorly dependent on the award as per say Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Kumar Bhalla at this point. To be clear (and I may be wrong) Buckshey likely does not massively outstand in prowess ... it is more with the time period and dearth of provisioning that he worked and recognition by successors. I am somewhat minded of this discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Battersbee, plays one game of cricket on one single and gets to have an article! (Given the travelling logistics at the time it does actually add to the value). For Buckshey one has to context of Delhi in the 1950s-1990s ... rather than Boston in the 20th century. Awards can at times be tainted anyway ... in the UK we have controversies such as [6]. So I am minded to be wary of an award in itself unless the article can demonstrate a little more behind it, as to an extent this one can.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are attempting to bend over backward for people who have nothing but fluff to recommend them. It wasn't just Boston in the 20th century, there were plenty of London and Chicago there. If you don't like the 20th century, I can produce the 21st. Here is an example of a 21st-century Boston psychiatrist who does not have a Wikipedia page. If you don't think he is notable, please take a look at some of the other people on the scientific advisory panel listed on the left, which includes two Nobel laureates. If you don't like psychiatry and Boston, here is a 21st-century historical demographer in England. He doesn't have a Wikipedia page either. My point is that when people are notable, it does not take a rocket scientist or a Hegalian dialectician to figure it out. If you are grasping at straws, then they are not notable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Outrageous! You have just insulted those who award the Padma Shri of India as fluff let alone honorable members of the Delhi Psychiatric Society! Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't insulted anyone, only stated the obvious that the three people up for deletion do not have anything by way of scholarly sources to recommend them. The fourth-level Padma award is not a reliable scholarly source. There are at least a hundred psychiatrists in the US who are more notable in the field of psychiatry by Wikipedia's rules than any psychiatrist in Delhi, but who do not have Wikipedia pages. I'm not insulting anyone. I know the scene there. The best-known psychotherapist in Delhi (who has now retired and moved away), Sudhir Kakar, is a lay-psychoanalyst, i.e. with a Ph. D. but not a medical degree, and does not have the Padma award to my knowledge, though he is very notable. India is a conservative society. Going to therapy, acknowledging psychiatric issues is not yet a part of its culture even among the wealthy urban classes, let alone among the rural poor. Bharat Vatwani, the Mumbai psychiatrist, who recently won the Ramon Magsaysay Award, but who also does not have any Padma recognition, had this to say:

"Nearly 15% of Indian adults suffer from some form of mental illness. This translates to more than 180 million people in the country, though only a minuscule number have access to the necessary medical facilities. There is a severe shortage of psychiatrists, especially in rural areas. According to Vatwani, “Over 80% of the government hospitals in India do not have a psychiatrist. One of the main reasons being that many Indian psychiatrists prefer to move abroad, for better prospects. There are less than 4,000 practising psychiatrists in a nation of over a billion people!” Of the people who do have access to professional help, very few are willing to seek it. Mental illness continues to be largely a taboo subject in India." (See here).

I could go on, but what would be the point of it? But please do not feign outrage, and please do not attempt faux respect, i.e be paternalistic, by calling the Delhi Psychiatric Society "honorable." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS As for the "honorable" bodies, this is what the Indian Psychiatric Society does, in reaction to a recent Lancet Editorial on Kashmir. They will be rewarded by their government with the Padmas. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: You can't even keep focus on the entities and time periods mentioned, and appear to have a pro US bias that you cannot contain.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark It must be a small wonder then that with that lack of focus I managed to write so many articles on India, including the FA India. See my user page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler The FA may be grand but we're on the stub/start groundfloor here. I was looking more at Philip Holzman where there is little on article source or little use of source content, a failing somewhat akin to the DGG example three. However I won't test Holzman at with a [[WP:POINT]y AfD as I'd half to ignore the WP:BEFORE on the Professor/Emeritus if nothing else.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark But you can't. See the avalanche of sources, scholarly no less, not just reliable, that will come tumbling down your way if you do. I don't think you understood my point earlier, where I said, that I have written articles on psychiatrists that have only one source, implying that at a minute's notice they can be supplemented with the dozens that exist out there and that properly belong to the article, but that because of my laziness and inattention and others' lack of interest, are not there. Here, on the other hand, we have a monumental vacuum of sources, a nothingness. More seriously, this page does a disservice to encyclopedicity in Wikipedia, to India, to Indian psychiatry, for it lowers the credibility of those that properly belong there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Of course I don't understand you. Credit or discredit is strangely irrevelant in the page entity. Multidimension and not tunnel is what I say. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark I gave you a restricted offering of sources on Holzman, confining the search to university presses, with "preview available." Otherwise, in fuller dimension, there are 305 sources for Holzman in Google Books alone. Please attempt that deletion discussion on Holzman. I'll eat my shoe if it lasts more than a few minutes, that is, if I am informed. Seriously, what the heck are you doing here, endlessly arguing with no content to the argument? This is not an ego issue; it has to do with lack of encyclopedic information in a bogus page, not about Holzman, one of the great psychiatrists of recent times. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: Tangoing takes two. Due process indicated to me a WP:BEFORE on Holzman would fail, it is therefore inppropriate to attempt it. I did consider doi. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark :) Well, even if all this does nothing for Mr Buckshee, it will help improve the Holzman article. What is doi? Do you mean WP:DOI? That is not a bad idea. Meanwhile, just a minute ago, I noticed that Holzman is the author of the article "Personality," in Encyclopedia Britannica. There was a long obituary (not paid) about him in the New York Times in 2004, and an even longer obituary in the journal Nature. The latter two will help in elaborating the biographical section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO. WP:India contributor here, so believe I can present more insight on the awards and subject notability. The Padma Shree is given to persons with large social contributions, which generally makes them notable for an article. There may be exceptions but this subject is not one. In addition he has also won several other prestigious awards. "Dr. Buckshey was honoured with Padmashri Award. Shiromani Award for outstanding achivements in Psychiatry and Neurology, Eminent Citizen of India Award 1994, Rajiv Gandhi Excellence Award 1994 for outstanding achivements in Pyschiatry & Neurology, Ati Param Visisht Chikitsa Medal 1997 etc." as mentioned in this source--DBigXrayᗙ 08:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The is also the matter of the WP:PROF/WP:NACADEMIC sated by National professor of psychiatry and neurosciences. As in all these test cases can I ask for experienced closers/relisters only please and comments to be left in either case. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about other articles When I checked our category of those who had received the awards, at least 1/3 were unambiguously notable. So either we are getting all the notable ones, or the entire list does have to be checked to see if there are notable ones we have not covered. I would strongly support (and am willing to work on revising) articles on every one of them who do meet the usual standards. I have always advocated intensive work on all areas that are under-covered here to find the notable people. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about sourcing I don't think the unavailability of sources for the modern period is actually a problem--the articles do document what the people have done. Where it would be a real problem is for the British period. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the contrary, the British period is impeccably documented. (Examine the naturalists of British India on my user page.) It is the post-independence period, especially the last 40 years, that are increasingly troublesome. Witness this physician. Please note the extraordinarily unreliable sources: a powerpoint of an informal annual gathering being dressed up to look like journal article, alumni group entries being used for sourcing, WP:OR in the form of looking up voter lists and directories of the Indian Psychiatric Association; WP:SYNTHESIS in the form of randomly throwing in a reliable source (the only one in the article) that does not reference Buckshey to piece together a sentence about him being active during a time in which Delhi (which is consistently misspelled) had few psychiatrists. What exactly is a neuro-physician anyway? It is not a term of English, nor of any regional variety of English. Such is the frenetic refurbishment, a snow job, that has been done on the article in the last few days. (Contrast with Philip Holzman that I expanded in a few hours last night, or Arnold Modell that I will also expand.) Whosoever attempts to close this will need to examine the sources with the eyes of a hawk. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fellowship in the International Medical Sciences Academy is not enough by itself (honorary fellowship might be enough). And apart from that, and apart from the protestations and special pleading above, we still don't have enough in-depth independent reliable sourcing about the subject for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We need to be sceptical of articles that list a lot of minor honors and this is one of those. Colombo Plan, "records of giving psychiatry", assistant director of something, and fourth highest civilian award are all fairly minor. Large numbers of professional people can claim similar "honors" without being notable. More often than not, these things merely come with the territory. --regentspark (comment) 23:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To be clear Jiloha & Kukreti (2018) is not claimed as a WP:RS for notability purposes. To quote Dorcas Lane "My on weakness ..." my spelling. I've addressed some recent comments about in the article. While recent comments trumpet Holzman and his article and need to start placing the emphasis of on some passing references that simply and rightfully are used to date parts of the biography to shift focus from Nacadmic claim which is ignored.07:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - agreed with argument above. Not enough in-depth independent sourcing - Jay (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A late !vote that completely fails to address the neither notability claim of WP:NACADEMIC (national professor) which is thus standing. It has also been presented that Padma Shree sating WP:ANYBIO is sufficient for notability; (my pragmatic but possibly unorthodox view on that honour is that it is a counter towards WP:SIGCOV however closer will also note that this point has been widely discussed across this AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Prakash Singh, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Kumar Bhalla).Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/P._B._Buckshey&oldid=1068848229"