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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamalendu Deb Krori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

the article was previously tagged with G11, there are no sources to estabilish notability of the person Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep If you search his name, there is decent coverage of him and his work. Though it wouldn't be the end of the world if this page is deleted. LeBron4 (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning toward delete. A look through Scopus returns only 70 documents and an h index of 11. It doesn't appear that being a principal of the school is enough for notability (only one other out of 51 has an article), and his memberships and awards aren't especially prestigious either. I only got 130 google hits for Kamalendu Krori (101 for "Kamalendu Deb|Dev Krori"), most of which are genealogy and wiki pages. JoelleJay (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: I think he worked/published as "KD Krori", like many of that era in India and elsewhere; searches on that string with physics or relativity come up with 6,640 & 6,090 hits, respectively, which look much more relevant. Also, he published his main works in 1975 & 1982, so a Google search will not provide any accurate notion of relative notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If the subject is an elected member of the New York Academy of Sciences then that would probably fulfill WP:PROF; needs confirmation/sourcing. Not an expert in physics citations but the Google Scholar citations ("KD Krori")[1] look fairly healthy with two highly cited papers and two or three other moderate: 229, 157, 71, 51, 41. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note, DGG, the admin who declined the G11, who is an expert in notability of academics, stated in edit summary "notable (NYAS)". Espresso Addict (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. elected member NYAS is one of the qualifications which alone shows notability; the other two are Fellow AAAS, and the highest US honor, Fellow National Academy. (and some field-specific honors: Fellow IEEE, Fellow APS) h index is meaningless: someone with papers 400, 300 250 100 40 6 has a h of 6, and so does someone with papers 6 5 4 3 3 2, but they're at opposite ends of the scale. number of papers depends on whether the person wants to go the route of trying to write up the same work in as many little papers as possible. . What makes someone notable in science is being influential in their field among their peers; this is judged by their most important work. (analogous, someone who wrote one great symphony and nothing else of consequence is notable, as someone with 1 Olympic medal and no other significant competitions, and , if I understand it, a band is notable if they have only a few charting records (or maybe 1?).

Furthermore, as Expresso Addict says, the citation numbers depend upon time--in past years there were fewer journals and fewer articles and therefore fewer citations. The highest ( and, in my opinion, totally irrational) publication density is the last 10 years of biomedicine, where we usually ask for 2 papers with 100 or more. 10 years ago, we wanted one paper with 100 or more. Everything else is lower. Several people, including one of my graduate students, have published comparisons of ISI, Scopus, and GS citation numbers; the results are consistent: GS is twice the others because it includes a wider range of publications, but the relative numbers are consistent across people. . The numbers we usually go by here is GS, because everyone has access to it, not just people in a few dozen rich universities. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as per the rationales of DGG and Espresso Addict, passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Been a principal of Cotton College and served as a Professor at St. Anthony's College, Shillong, which I've already sourced in article. This JSTOR paper mentions him as a member of Indian History Congress (see number 157). ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - In what sense is he supposed to be an NYAS member? The page gives no source ofr the claim and https://www.nyas.org/people-list/honorary-members-and-academy-fellows/ does not list him under either Honorary Members or Academy Fellows. If this claim pans out, it is a clear keep; without it, I might !vote delete. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2021 (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.