Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. Balakrishnan (physicist)

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. Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

V. Balakrishnan (physicist)[edit]

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

Reads like a personal advertisement brochure. Advertisement about youtube videos and faculty positions of the family members. Educationtemple (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. I think that being a Fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences gives sufficient notability. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: There may be several hundred thousand such Fellows in India. Lets go by notability criteria set by WP (reliable secondary source citations to substantiate the notability), and then decide rather than simple assumptions! Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overstating it. All Fellows are listed on their web site and there are 40 on the 'A' page. Nevertheless, the number is quite large. Have you looked for sources? --Bduke (Discussion) 20:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I humbly state that this is not over statement. India is a country of 125 million and there are dozens of similar societies in India. Please do not go with just one title and assess, even a nobel laureate here on WP require some secondary sources to establish the claim on notability. If I am wrong, you can please give a reference to appropriate WP rule, where this is the exception. Educationtemple (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobel laureate would clearly meet the second criteria in WP:NACADEMICS, subject only to a source that says he or she is a Nobel laureate. This professor may meet the 3rd criteria, but it depends on the nature of that Academy. He also has two major books published outside India. He appears to be retired as he is 72. I agree he currently appears marginal as a keep. Let us see whether someone in his field can find better sources than you can. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I have looked the sources for this article. Source 1 is breaking and dead, other three sources are going to youtube. Google search give zero results. He claims that he worked in the area of particle physics and many-body theory. A combination of his simple name plus these two terms (individually) also result in zero related results all time. We are only left with youtube links to establish the notability and WP:ACADEMIC. Though we are not supposed to do Original Research here but if you come across any reference to satisfy notability criteria, please let us know. Thanks Educationtemple (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misinterpreting the meaning of original research! See WP:OR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : In India only Movie actors and Cricketers rise to stardom and find mention in secondary sources. 123.252.131.50 (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - All right. It implies that WP should now have separate terms for actors/researchers and researchers from India/US/Ghana/Cuba and so on....?? Also this implies that there are no mentions in secondary sources. This disqualify the article on WP. Thanks for strengthening the afd nomination. Educationtemple (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure about the academy fellowship discussed above (fellowship in Indian National Science Academy would clearly pass WP:PROF but this is a different similarly-named academy) but Google scholar lists a stunning 15673 citations for his book "Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory", 1573 for his paper "Robust constrained model predictive control using linear matrix inequalities", and many other highly-cited works. This is a very clear pass of WP:PROF#C1, regardless of what country he happens to be from. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be the same man. It is Venkataramanan Balakrishnan: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. The title too does not fit theoretical physics. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mat be right Bduke. As per amazon, the Venkataramanan Balakrishnan of the above famous book has published three books - and non of them match with the name of the books cited on the article of the subject (i.e. Elements of Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics). This infers that these two VBs are different. Educationtemple (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, striking my comment since it appears to be based on faulty data. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would appear that fellowship of the IAS probably does satisfy WP:NACADEMICS #3. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply and query from all Editors here and Admins: All right. IAS was established in 1934. Since than tii date there are approx 5000 Fellows of this society. National Academy of Science, India has approx 2500 fellows. NASI has equal number probably. Indian Science Congress may have even more. All together, it comes to apprx 10 thousand Fellows. Will it be OK if I create the article about all these 10 thousand fellows on WP, since they all automatically meet the criteria of notability on WP as per above discussions. And I will only provide a single citation on all the articles, the link to the websites or the directory where its is stated that the person is a Fellow. Some times, I will not provide even that (as in this article), which has got several Keeps in ongoing afd, without a single reference whatsoever in place for any of the claim. My question is: Will all the editors here support me to do this. If any of these 10 thousand articles are sent in afd in future, I will give reference to this afd discussion Please let me know (specially the one who has given a keep here). Thanks. Educationtemple (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Royal Society has had far more fellows. We wouldn't dream of deleting articles on any of them! Not honestly sure what your problem is? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will appreciate a direct reply of my question above. We are not talking about Royal Society here. We are talking about IAS, NAS, NASI, ISCA, NAAS and other similar societies and academies of India. More than 10 thousand Fellows and I dream to create article for all of them, just a single line article and one reference (May be nice Photo too). I am going to use this reply as a reference in future afds. I would consider your indirect reply or 'Silence' on this as your disagreement and then your 'keep' on this article will not have any meaning, I am humble. Educationtemple (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not the way to go about it. We need to look at each of these societies separately and certainly not have "other similar societies and academies of India". I consider that we have far too few articles on academics. We probably do not have all Fellows of the Royal Society. The List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science has many redlinks. We do not even have articles for all the Foundation Members and all the Presidents. I suspect the situation for Indian academics is worse. So indeed go ahead and write articles but make them good stubs and start with the most important scientists. On this article, I said "Keep but improve". I was hoping that someone would add some references while the AfD was on, but this has not happened and we have confusion with another scientist. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Great! I must work on this! IAS, NAS, NAAS, ISCA and INSA - these are major societies and academies in India. I shall systematically enlist all Fellows of them, and create articles. Please dont complain later and please help when they go in afd. This is a good news for Women empowerment advocates too, they just need to find a Fellow women and nothing else to be her on WP. This statues will clarify lots of doubts of Indian editors, who find it difficult to give a secondary source (as reasoned that Indian media cover only cricketers and film stars, not scientists). Any admin, senior admin, please feel free to comment, this is very important discussion going on here...we should not change our minds later. Thanks. Educationtemple (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bduke: Re: I think you have also given a keep based on that the subject is a Fellow of Indian Academy of Science. Now you yourself are thinking back whether these academies are equal to Royal Society or not! I have nominated the article in afd, since I know the difference between IAS and Royal Society. I know that these two are not equal. I nominated afd, but you and other editors given a keep. I humbly state that it was you and other editors (who given a keep here), who should have thought all the above before giving a keep whether a Fellow of IAS should be comparable to FRS. If this subject could be a keep based on that he is a Fellow of IAS, all the Fellows of IAS deserve to be here on WP. This is my point, and I think I am honest and fare in this. Let the statues pass, and if this article is a keep finally, I am going to refer to these discussions when I myself create articles for all the Fellows of IAS on WP. Thanks. Educationtemple (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! A user just posted me this article. She is also FNAS. A notability tag was added on this last month. I will selectively remove such tags from this, and all such articles if this article sustain in this afd. I am sure users such as @Anasuyas: would well receive this! Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think you need to be careful before rushing headlong into creating thousands of stubs based only on the subject's membership of a particular body. Per WP:NACADEMICS as regards memberships of such associations: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." The general notability guideline requires that any article topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, a single reference showing membership of the IAS or similar is not sufficient for an article to be retained. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I respectfully honor your views @Philg88:. In fact, my argument too on this and other similar afd nominations such as (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) is the same that - though these subjects are Fellows of one of the above mentioned societies of India, but not covered in any reliable sources, hence not meet general notability guideline. Still I see lots of "keep" with argument that notability is met simply because the subject is a Fellow. I honor these views, but it leave me in a situation to believe that this statute/rule that merely a reference to confirm that a person is a Fellow is sufficient to "keep" the article (as evident from above keeps), then why the rule should be different for other fellows, and then there is no harm if all those 10 thousand people are here on WP. I am humble and just want to understand why - for example One FNA is tagged for not notability, however, another FNA is given a 'keep' since he is a FNA. In Law, the judgements on some cases become Case Law and enact statues and precedents to help other cases. If these afds are "keep" finally, it will open the ways for editors to create articles about "ALL the Fellows" of these societies on WP. I add that none or most of the afd nominations by me recently, are covered in any reliable sources as per WP guidelines. If these were, I could have worked hard to improve them rather than nominating in afd Educationtemple (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're interpreting things a little too rigidly here. Just because people are saying we should keep this article and others because the subjects are fellows of a national academy of sciences doesn't mean we then need to run out and create stubs on every other person who is a member of a similar academy. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. It's a work in progress. People write articles as and when they feel like doing it. Yes, every member of these academies is probably deserving of an article. If they weren't eminent in their fields then they wouldn't be members. That doesn't mean they all have to have an article immediately. As to reliable sources, in what way are these people not covered in reliable sources? What do you think is unreliable? There's absolutely nothing unreliable about an academic's profile on his university's website or the website of a learned society of which he is a member. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have humbly put forward my points very clearly, and I give myself a rest at this point - let all of YOU and other honorable editors and administrators decide upon this and other afds collectively. And just to clarify at last that the link to institutes profile in this specific article is dead and profile at the page of the society has nothing more than telephone number and email address. Other references are youtube video links. other great publication (discovered during this afd discussion) are suspected to be of some other author as discussed above. OM Peace... Educationtemple (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - any other reliance sources that is in Hindi? - Mailer Diablo 17:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are aa good sources for this as for any academic: Notability under WP PROF is based upon the extent to which the person is an authority, and is normally proven in science by the citations to their peer-reviewed contributions to scientific journals. The criteria of society membership is a shortcut (among other possible short-cuts, such as prizes), on the assumption that people who meet the shortcuts always have such recognition, or they would not have been elected, given the prize, etc.-- and that the committees involved in such honours are better judges of this than we are. It is generally considered here that scientific notability is international. and the standard is international.

In this case the question is whether the standards of this particular national society are sufficiently high to prove this. I am undecided on this. I certainly think that it is not as high as the Royal society or the NAS US, and that this non-equivalence is recognized in India as elsewhere-- particular in India, in fact, where major foreign awards are considered more prestigious than national ones. That does not prove that the standard might not be sufficient nonetheless. We are left with two very unfortunate choices: either recognizing the lack of merit of certain national societies, or admitting people to a recognized international standard depending on what countries they come from. I would very much like to avoid making such a general determination here, or at any of the individual AfDs. Perhaps we shouldctry to look at whether it meets the basic WP:PROF standard. If it does, that would be sufficient. that will take some further analysis. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but will need rewriting, because it is too promotional. Articles emphasising the popularity as a teacher & the notability of the children give a promotional impression for any scientist. Looking beyond this , Citation analysis is on Google Scholar but some of the items are by someone else. Analysis needs to take into account both the number of citations and the journal. The most cited paper with 120 cites is in Physica A, a good but not top level journal. The second, with 88 cites ins in Physical Review A, a first-rate journal. third, with 88 cites, likewise a first rate journal. Others areabout half in first rate journals, which is a good but not really outstanding record. Notability also has to take into account the books. Looking at WorldCat, they are published by very respectable scientific publishers ~~and are in 100s of libraries.~~ DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to DGG's Comment Please be careful, there are other authors with similar name. Professor David Eppstein (Editor above) already has stricken his keep and comment (please see discussion below his comment). It is so irresponsible of the editor who create such articles (with out source)! As per WP policy (if I remember correctly) it is upon the creating editor to cite appropriate references to support the claims, and in case of this article, most of the editors who contributed to this article so far, failed to do so. One reason for this is real lack of sources appropraite citing here Educationtemple (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the crystalline state : an emerging perspective[1] is in 257 libraries. He's one of three co-authors. To be sure, it's part of a major review series than many libraries get as a series, but it is significant for being even published in that series. Elements of Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics is in 82 libraries. The other books I looked at are indeed by other people. {{[User|Educationtemple}}, I appreciate the correction. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 25 April 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.