Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subrat Kumar Prusty

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subrat Kumar Prusty[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOT DELETE: There are 6 references and a bibliography apart from a list of books published where his main area of expertise is not writing and WP:AUTHOR is not the only parameter to check. Secondly, him being an Odia-language researcher, majority of the publications and other work are all in Odia of which some are in Unicode and many are not. Many of the work are not available online which makes it even difficult to measure actual work done by this person. So I would recommend to keep the article and not delete rightayay. Rather, allow with some time to enhance it. --Psubhashish (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the best I seem to find was one trivial mention at Highbeam but certainly nothing compelling enough to keep. Draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. there is not much material here, but this is a quite difficult area for us in terms of cultural bias. I think it's fairly clear that he is an expert in his subject, and therefore meets the requirements of WP:PROF. I can't prove it, in the way I could prove someone in some other fields, but it seems very likely, and for this sort of subjects, that's enoguh. DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hello DGG, very kind of you to notice the concerns about cultural bias. I must clarify that the person in discussion is an Indian and so am I (the nominator of AfD). I would hence request you not to worry about the "bias" as I see none. Prusty does not have any notability (atleast not that I noticed). Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Cultural bias" as we use it does not mean bias of Wikipedians about people from a particular cultural area. (It's assumed we never see that here). It means rather the limitation of the sources available to us for people in a particular field from a particular region. Sources for Indian authors are relatively hard to come by for most of us, and even in India, they are not as reliable or as common as in the US or the UK. There is no union catalog of libraries; there is no periodical index of book reviews. Googles have limited coverage, even of English language publications. Many publishers are quite small, without extensive resources. It is therefore considerably harder to find sources of the same quality we would be able to for English language authors elsewhere. This is true even for works in English or the major Indians languages. It is all the more true for works in the relatively less prevalent Indian languages such as the one in which he specializes. DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification DGG, I thought it otherwise. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 22:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- sources are weak but as DGG notes, this is typical for Indian academics. There is enough sourcing for me to trust the claims of him being a significant academic with quality work. The article is written without puffery, so it seems to help the encyclopedia. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and Michael Scott Cuthber. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:38, 15 December 2015 (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.