- P. B. Buckshey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Good faith close at XfD was delete (no additional comments). Under scrutiny on talk page closer had seemingly ignored the notable claim for the article per WP:NACADMEIC of a national level honour National professor of psychiatry and neurosciences; the national level here being key; with no delete !voters disputing that claim, these !voters ignoring the claim but focusing on other matters. While I personally move this claim was sufficient to keep I would anticipate and expect that with no prior relists the appropriate practice would have been at a minimum to relist and pointing out the unanswered point. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG, Tachs, Rocky 734, Fowler&fowler, David Eppstein, RegentsPark, and Whjayg: Notification: DRV raised for AfD for P. B. Buckshey you were involved in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December 6. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To my reading, that discussion implies that Wikipedians didn't quite reach a consensus on whether Mr Buckshey passes a notability guideline, but agreed to delete the article on the basis that the text was intolerably promotional. I presume that there was no non-promotional version in the history to restore. The way I understand what I've just read, I think the consensus is that you could, maybe, potentially have an article on Mr Buckshey, but we won't restore that article on Mr Buckshey. Personally I think it would be preferable if you could make an article at Purushottam Buckshey rather than using his initials and I would recommend submitting a draft rather than putting it directly into the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as AfD closer. I made it clear in my close that there was no prejudice against refunding to draft. I would consider that a reasonable resolution to the objection raised here as well. BD2412 T 20:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @BD2412: (edit conflict) Your offer of no prejudice against refunding to draft is appreciated but is a distraction from scrutiny reveals a good faith but ultimately inappropriate close of the AfD which is what this here to discuss. It is important for the community to discuss that particular point. This was raised by DGG as a test case. DGG had this as a test case I specifically requested: " experienced closers/relisters only please and comments to be left in either case" .... NOT DONE! If we went for the !vote counting then its 4+nom for delete and 3 keep. So you are at risk of a supervote accusation and giving precedence to snipe voting. And are you having that the article was intolerably promotional? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Your case needed to be made to the participants in the AfD, who were not persuaded to this effect. BD2412 T 21:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (as the nom. in the AfD) If somebody wishes to try a draft, there is no reason why they should not. Whether they succeed can be judged when the draft has been written. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Wikipedia page, National Professor, is about an honor in Bangladesh granted to a handful of the nation's academic luminaries. In India, there used to be a scholarship "National Professor" granted to academics after retirement, a much-claimed honor, I might add, as hard evidence of the awards by India's University Grants Commission seems to be lacking, until recently. It was apparently made more democratic in 2013 and began to be called "Emeritus Fellowship". See Category Emeritus Professors in India It is granted for two years, after retirement, paying $400 per month in salary, and approximately $800 per year in a travel/research grant. India's University Grants Commission invites applications every year. At any given time, there are no more than 100 fellowship holders in the sciences and a similar number in the humanities. (See here That means, on average, 100 new awards are made every year to retired teachers in Indian universities. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou. A discussion that should have occurred on the AfD and why a relist would have been the appropriate course and the question of whether WP:NACADEMIC is satisifed by this award.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the people listed in that category such as S. N. Bose and Jayant Narlikar are very notable. But if I had a dime for every person in India who has claimed their advisor or father (usually) was a national professor I couldn't help amassing a small fortune. It is the sourcing that is the problem. Is there an announcement by the University Grants Commission awarding Buckshey that fellowship? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Having taken part in only a handful of AfDs, and no reviews of AfDs, I can't add much to the legalities of the closure. I support the closure on the basis of what I have seen by way of the sources. The National Professor claim, even if it is verified in the manner I have asked above, will not change my assessment. The main problem is that we have not the foggiest notion of what Mr Buckshey contributed to psychiatry, only a list of his awards, real or alleged. That is not encyclopedicity. I will also not take part in further rehashes of Mr Buckshey's notability, as my time is limited, and it will be better utilized in creating pages for those of clear notability. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fowler&fowler; Thankyou for your input on this matter and it perhaps demonstrates why this test case AfD was perhaps closed early. On the two sources identified identifying the national professor the major one likely in my opinion got his date of birth incorrect and while I would have expected it to accurate I perhaps might not care to bet my clothing on it if anyone challenged it. The other which confirmed it, a citation from paper presented at a peer reviewed IEEE mentioned the national professor so might have expected some accuracy: I will note this was removed from the article by a !voter which may imply they had a need to hide this evidence, though that might be regarded as a point of straw. We continue to not be on the same page as to Buckshey's notability, you possibly looking more for a contribution to the science of psychiatry; I perhaps might be looking more for the introduction of technniques and medications from his UK training to the Delhi area ... but there were only glimpses of that in sources so far. Additional offline Bibliographic sources may have indicated a little more but I would need to do up to say London to access. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support close and allow draftification. It is not true that the close was without comments. I think the AfD closure was within the closer's remit, although if I were doing it myself (for an AfD that, unlike this one, I had not commented in) I would have probably judged it as no consensus and likely relisted instead of closing. The closer suggested using the draft process to clarify potential notability that was not fully clear at the time of deletion. This suggestion of using the draft process seems to me a much better choice than overthrowing the close without first clarifying these issues, and also better than trying to hash them out here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support closure Special pleading is not convincing (I did not take part in the AfD). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- @Xxanthippe: While you did not take part in this AfD you made this comment in another of test cases [1] to this closer of this AfD and the other one and accused me of WP:Wikilawyering in the content of failure to attribute which is somewhat of an issue. As regard the pleading, a somewhat emotive word. If you specifically can justify it was inappropriate for me to bring this DRV then please feel free to say specifically that. The AfD was of an unusually long length and brought as a test case by a nom of very good standing and I am very concerned the closure was at the least not best practice and did not seemingly stand scrutiny well.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly do you mean by a test case? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- To quote the Afd nom: "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.". All three cases appear also to have the Padma Shri in common also, which also means India is common in all three also.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- Overturn and relist – I'm not seeing how a closer finds consensus to delete in that discussion. The opinion was almost exactly evenly divided. Participants did not agree about whether the Padma Shri, or any other award, met NACADEMIC. Seemed like the arguments on both sides were policy-based. The national professor point was raised somewhat late and not addressed. The AfD had never been relisted before. Divided, policy-based opinions with no prior reslists = relist. I note the other two similar AfDs were both relisted. – Levivich 22:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support closure - The article was deleted according to proper processes. Do not see why we should discuss it again. If you want to rewrite about it, do it in "draft". - Jay (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: (as DRV nom) n terms of the additional discussion required of the national professor/WP:NACADEMIC there has been fruitful input by Fowler&fowler above and following that discussion which was absent from the AfD and I am pragmatically minded unless something new parachutes in a relist would now not be beneficial on this point. While the closure did not discuss the Padma Shri as directly as sufficient or not as a national award I have not raised the DRV on that matter and I am minded to recommend anyone specifically interest in that to discuss at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Kumar Bhalla or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Prakash Singh which are currently open. Understandably delete voters are mostly siding with closure, a more neutral has at least raised eyebrows with the closure. The discussion had here is usefully in any mainspace re-presentation of a draft, and as I may be prepared to work a draft at some point or certainly prepared to steward same I suggest an overturn and draftify vote is appropriate. The right to work on any reasonable draft is pretty much universal anyway.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - It appears that either Delete or No Consensus would have been a valid call by the closer, so Delete is a valid call. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Delete was a valid reading of the consensus here, and the offer to draftify the article is a sufficient remedy for anyone who wanted this kept. SportingFlyer T·C 07:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist – I'm not seeing how a closer finds consensus to delete in that discussion. I did not participate in the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- If I were the closing admin I would have probably closed this as "no consensus", or relisted it, but "delete" was also possible given that the participants who said that really did take an in-depth look at the sources and made some pretty convincing arguments. Reyk YO! 07:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would again like to remind peoples, the reason I took this to this to WP:DRV was the lack of discussion or consensus on WP:NACADEMIC C#2 re: national professor which can be sufficient for an article in lieu of WP:GNG and which had a right to be taken into consideration. I stand by discussion on that point was insufficient and I am reasonably certain was not accounted properly by the closer (who at all times has acted in good faith and most respectfully) which is why as nominator on that crucial point I maintain overturn. Discussions have occurred on this DRV about this point and following those discussions I am not personally prepared to hold WP:NACADEMIC C#2 with the sources I currently know of with combination of the possible issues around the national professor and the required strength of such sources. As I am prepared to hold stewardship of the draft and occasionally seek better sources that may arise from digitisation or otherwise I have requested draftification (pointless asking to draftify unless someone is prepared to steward it) Obviously sources may arise and I feel WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC can now be satisified in which case mainspace is possible or it remains in draft until I or elseone forget to fettle it. A point about those who say I should be grateful for the closer's offer to drafity …. I find such comments condescending as I am perfectly aware I have a almost a right to ask for draftification so to be asked to be grateful for an offer of something of which I have a right does not help my humour … but what I really do appreciate is the closer making it clear to refunder's that the exercise of that right to draftification should be given without hindrance. I am also surprised some non-admins participating im the discussion had not asked for a tempundelete to cross check the AfD discussion with the article and its historic versions ( An example is where I was picked up for having WP:SYTHENTIZED. I review I particularly noticed a problem sentence in the lede supported by two citations that were inappropriate to synthesis; the problem was addressed in later revisions by splitting into two precise sentences; this would not be obvious without a tempundelete. About the only other reason I could see claiming a no consensus delete was failure to meet WP:BEFORE C#3 by saying tag with say Template:BLP sources, however as that is to be avoided on stubs that can't reasonably be done. After that ramble can I particularly ask any people still requiring a relist to indicate what they hope to achieve from such as re-list. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse In the absence of agreement or understanding about the nature of awards, it was reasonable to look for the basic criterion for WP:PROF, impact on the profession (which , after all, is what awards are supposed to be based on)--and there is no evidence of any significant scientific contributions. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG If the closer had offered this evidence early in my scrutiny on the closure on the closer's talk page it would have been reasonable not to have raised the DRV; it is however for the purposes of national professor award somewhat dependent on discussions that have occurred post-AfD in this DRV. This to a degree is a moot point, and there is an argument I needed to have fully understood and has had better sourcing for the national professor award before utilizing it but as things stood at the time of closure those matters had not apparently been accounted in the discussion or the closure. While your initial nomination had mentioned WP:PROF(WP:NACADEMIC is a subsection thereof) I am reasonably certain that national professor was not present in the article at the time of nomination and therefore you would likely not have considered it at that point. As was noted the article was (frenetically) improved during the AfD but that is understandable perhaps as the article had not been pre-tagged for issues per Template:BLP sources. (pragmatically I would not have monitored that myself having been alerted to that AfD through a watch of the creator's talk page for some tentative reason now almost forgotten - and removed shortly after your raise of a further AfD on 7 December 2019 ). I would need a temp-undelete to verify some comments here as working from memory plus a wayback archive. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- it was not in the article at the time. A category note has been added to Category:Emeritus Professors in India asserting it to be an especially important award, but the note is unsourced. Looking for a source, I find National Research Professor on an government site, [2] but I have not yet found an indication it is the same thing . There's a list at [3], in which he is not included. I haven't checked further. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for checking. That source was likely removed by a delete !voter about 3 revisions back, who may have inconsistently removed the source (now I am guessing on that point and should have spotted it at the time). That said it was a citation to an interview by a paper presented at an IEEE conference where the paper presenter has interviewed P. B. Buckshey and had referred to him as national professor in the citation of the interview. It it only the second online document that I have found where he was so referred. I observe the document your have found is entitled "National Research Professor" as opposed to "National Professor" - again I have no clue to the significance thereof. Should this return to mainspace on the basis of WP:ANYBIO, as per how other AfCs seem to be closing, the national professor claim may need to be suppressed at present without additional sourcing.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
