Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabindranath Mukherjee

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. Michig (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rabindranath Mukherjee[edit]

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

Insufficiently sourced biographical article. There are no references which allow us to verify the notability of this subject. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In a one minute search, I was able to find this biography on the website of the Indian National Science Academy, that country's top level scientific body, which verifies that he is an elected fellow. I agree that the current version of the article is poorly referenced, but we should not delete such biographies of notable scientists. Instead, we should improve the referencing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cullen's evidence gives a clear pass of WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen's solid analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2016 (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.