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 no consensus to say the least. Even after taking only into the account the discussion from the community (i.e. a cross-section thereof as what we normally get in these deletion discussions) and not from those who were obviously canvassed here from outside, the arguments for retention seem to outweigh the arguments for deletion, but not enough IMO to comfortably close as a solid keep. In any event, the article is going to remain kept, as no consensus defaults to keep. –MuZemike 23:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Chand Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

A re-creation of an article previously deleted at AfD. It is therefore speediable. However, at one point a non-SPA helped edit it and actually improved it, leading me to expect an improved article and deterring me from speedying it. Since that time it has reverted to being a hugely long-winded hagiography, has got even longer, and has sprouted family photographs. I can't imagine that it will improve and stay improved, but perhaps some reader of this AfD will disagree and undertake to keep it in good condition.

Hoary (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop deletion because the family photograph was available at the time of marriage and stored by some body who have regourously added and submitted. The matter of the article was not touched from long time. It seems that no one responsible person is behind this. I hope your warning is enough for such contributors. I once again want to say with administrator of wikipedia that Prof. Pandey is gentle and notable man and his publicity may be a cause of so regorouse submission of family photographs. As a fan of P C Pandey sir I request the admin wikipedia to stop deletion. Present 3 Image is essential and rest I have deleted as unknown editor. Thanks in advance for warning but stop deletion I request you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhila pk (talk • contribs) 07:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As "Ahila pk", what's above is your first and so far your only edit, but an IP number has removed the photos and (with no explanation) one list. As "a fan of P C Pandey" but also as a co-creator of an encyclopedia, would you care to continue to transform the article into something that summarizes concisely? -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a highly technical and very detailed resume of an individual's educational and professional background within the various fields in which the subject has worked. It is difficult to determine the notability of the individual within the scientific community, based on the content provided. A copy edit is implausible and the content is wholly unsuitable for an encyclopedia. The subject of the article may indeed be a very kind and gentle man with a beautiful family presented in wonderful photos. However, this does not establish notability appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Cindamuse (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• do not delete. "vppram" has contributed many Image related with Professor Prem Chand Pandey, which was submitted by some one to the article within few days. It is not base of deletion of such notable scientist now. Let the wikipedia admin should make it as notable article. Family of P C Pandey is very great and historical but the person in whose marrige he was is his nephew in village relation. Being a villager is not any bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis gp (talk • contribs) 10:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Louis gp; I see you are new here too. It's no more the job of a Wikipedia admin to improve an article than it is the job of any editor. Perhaps you would like to do some more work on it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 'remain it as notable article. I have supported the article as any user in wikipedia, I do not remember now. I am very familiar to the Prfessor P C Pandey who is very liberal and generally attended the marraige ceremony of his village people who requested with love. He have no so much poover background of family. He have his wife Savita Pandey and only daughter Nidhi Pandey therefore no reason of any son of his own. Yes he love Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Allahabad University very much, so he attended his marriage which was arranged from his native village Ramapur. In his marriage many friends and Ph.D. batch mate of Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey from Allahabad University present who were also familiar with well known scientis in India. The Dr. pandey attended the ceremoney so many of then thinks that Dr. Vivek is his father. I have seen all the all Image tagged with his name on wikipedia carefully this was pandey although who added all on the page clear by discussion may be wrong but it should not be base of deletion. I am too worry by this wikipedia decison and hope a genious scientist who work for making a base to atmospheric and oceanic in India will remain a an encyclopedic notable article for wikipedia. Once again I request the wikipedia person to take user help to improve it rather than delete such labourious Indian Scientist who work and work only grow for Indian science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.146.245 (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Look, this article is was an overblown, unreadable, piece of crap. Sorry, but it's true. It needs needed to be shorter by half and written in English prose EXPLAINING the man's importance rather than using some sort of terse, Who's Who In India dictionaryese. That said, there is clearly sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion plus a significant academic award showing, which should be enough to get him over the notability bar. But please, for the love of god, get this article fixed. It's an embarrassment. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But please, for the love of god, get this article fixed. Who are you addressing here? -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.........................Whom it may concern. Carrite (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at it again and it is MUCH better now. Kudos to the fixer or fixers. Carrite (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Pls Do not delete but work on the matter on books having ISBN number based on wikipedia article. I hope wikipedia will work on these LLC book publishers matter who have even not consulted with Professor Pandey. I want this clearify that Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey is his beloved nephew of his village by remote relation but not a son. The below books are depends on wiki article please look on the matter.

• “Indian Antarctic Program: Prem Chand Pandey”, Llc Books. Books LLC, 2010. ISBN 1156182395 EAN: 9781156182390. [10]

• “Indian Meteorologists: Prem Chand Pandey”, Llc Books. Books LLC, 2010. ISBN 115621856X EAN 9781156218563. [11]

• “Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Faculty: Prem Chand Pandey”, Llc Books. Books LLC, 2010. ISBN 1157012329 EAN 9781157012320. [12]

• “Indian Science Writers: Prem Chand Pandey”, Llc Books. Books LLC, 2010. ISBN 1156297648 EAN 9781156297643. [13]

• “Indian Academics: Amartya Sen, Prem Chand Pandey, H. S. S. Lawrence, Suchitra Mitra, Jagadguru Rmabhadrcrya, Ramdhari Singh 'Dinkar'”, Llc Books. Books LLC, 2010. ISBN 1157604501 EAN 9781157604501. [14]

• “Allahabad University: Allahabad University Alumni, Allahabad University Faculty, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Prem Chand Pandey, V. P. Singh”, Llc Books. Books LLC, 2010. ISBN 1157765114 EAN 9781157765110. [15]

• “Atmospheric Scientists: Prem Chand Pandey, Andrew Crosse, Ken Caldeira, Robert Angus Smith, David Lary, Dennis Tirpak, James Russell III”, Llc Books. Books LLC, 2010. ISBN 115639841X EAN 9781156398418. [16]

I got these from the ashutoshau@gmail.com and hope wikipedia admin will never delete the article. This user have some time edited the page with any user name and interested in P C Pandey sir's Page. An advance thanks to admin if Pandey's article find stable notable article position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.146.245 (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you say work on the matter on books having ISBN number based on wikipedia article [...] The below books are depends on wiki article please look on the matter. I find that very difficult to understand, but anyway you are drawing people's attention to books published by Books LLC that include material on Pandey. Well, Books LLC simply reprints stuff from Wikipedia. (This is legal, though it's unclear why any intelligent person would buy any.) What is your point here? -- Hoary (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article needs cleanup, not deletion. Although the cleanup would have to be pretty much a fundamental rewrite (which is an argument for deletion, not against), deletion doesn't solve the problem here, which is (no offense intended) armies of en-0.5 WP newbies choosing quantity over quality, both in prose and in references. To me, the notability of the subject is beyond doubt. What this article needs is a lift over a certain threshold (say, C-class) from where one could make reverts with a summary like "no improvement of the article", combined with a handful of experienced editors placing it on their watchlists. Should the article survive, I would volunteer to clean it up. --Pgallert (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Google Scholar gives cites of 2, 1, 1 only. Why are these so small for a person who is claimed to have published 134 papers? What are WoS cites? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• 'Make it a best wikipedia article by cleanup. Pandey is the best atmospheric scientist and his this article will make the wikipedia rich in atmospheric articles. Please read these link and books:

Atmospheric Scientists: Prem Chand Pandey, Andrew Crosse, Ken Caldeira, Robert Angus Smith, David Lary, Dennis Tirpak, James Russell III “Allahabad University: Allahabad University Alumni, Allahabad University Faculty, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Prem Chand Pandey, V. P. Singh”, Llc Books. Books LLC “Indian Academics: Amartya Sen, Prem Chand Pandey, H. S. S. Lawrence, Suchitra Mitra, Jagadguru Rmabhadrcrya, Ramdhari Singh 'Dinkar'”, Llc Books. Books LLC “Indian Science Writers: Prem Chand Pandey”, Llc Books. Books LLC “Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Faculty: Prem Chand Pandey”, Llc Books. Books LLC “Indian Antarctic Program: Prem Chand Pandey”, Llc Books. Books LLC “Indian Meteorologists: Prem Chand Pandey”, Llc Books. Books LLC,

Above books are available on these below web page

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Indian-Meteorologists-Prem-Chand-Pandey/.../115621856X

http://www.indiaplaza.in/books/ISBN-115621856X.htm

http://www.ebooknetworking.net/books_detail-115621856X.html

http://www.thenile.com.au/books/.../Indian-Meteorologists-Prem-Chand-Pandey/

http://www.soundmedia.ch/.../llc-books/indian-meteorologists-prem-chand-pandey

http://www2.loot.co.za/shop/product.jsp?lsn=1156182395

http://www.flipkart.com/indian-antarctic-program-llc-books-book-1156182395

http://www.cdbox.it/cdbook/scheda_book.asp?zona=book&isbn... I hope hoary will cool his mind to see this. And the Image problem was solved by cleanup by any one which was good initiation to cleanup it and make effective article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.148.22 (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you say Please read these link and books and give a list of "books" published by Books LLC. I had already commented on the products of Books LLC. You also say Make it a best wikipedia article by cleanup. Who are you addressing? (Would you like to clean it up?) -- Hoary (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a winner of the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology (the top award for research in india), meets WP:ANYBIO. But the article suffers from the attention of fanboys and needs a heavy pruning (I am willing to take a shot at it)--Sodabottle (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha, somebody who means business. I see you knocked off about twenty percent in about twenty minutes. Well done! -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup completed (whew!) Looking much better now. I have watchlisted the page and will (hopefully) prevent it from getting messed up again.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. You removed a large percentage of it, but what remains is pretty horrible. Keep going! One sample: The assertion "During 1997-2005, he was the founder-director of National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (NCAOR), Goa" is followed by fifteen footnotes. I can imagine reasons why one might not be sufficient, but not a reason why three or more would be needed. So which 13 or 14 should go? -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC) ... reworded Hoary (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A look at the history of the article and the history of the AfD shows the contrary, that this AfD is cleanup. Or substantial cleanup, anyway. There's plenty more work to be done; would you care to join the effort? -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep , clearly notable. Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep it as stable notable article. Dear Sodabottle and Hoary sir kindly improve the article for making it as notable. The person is back-bone of Indian Atmospheric and Ocean Science. I have taken n of the copy of Indian Meteorologist: Prem Chand Pandey from INFIBEAM's web page its very interesting to know him. He has done a lot for Indian Science and education. Much about him is he is founder director of any centre working on international level i.e. NCAOR. I request to Hoary sir to be humble and cool to stay the article on wikipedia, certainly it will rich encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis gp (talk • contribs) 12:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote struck, user already voted above. --Pgallert (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I shall endeavour to edit humbly and coolly, Louis gp. -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Article is most notable, do not delete. I feel that louis gp's statement is correct and article is being improved by some one which is justice for this article. Thus I also thanks Sodabottle and Hoary for creative work. The India's great atmospheric scientist's article deletion is not good on the occasion of Indian Indepence day. Pandey is great scientist who directly and indirectly influences the world large scientific group. Let it be notable article on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vppram (talk • contribs) 12:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC) — Vppram (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Notability is clearly established; deletion request denied. Cleaning up has been done. Gandupada (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever do you mean "deletion request denied"??? You are not an admin and are not in a position to close this AfD and to "deny" the AfD nomination. You should also know that pretending to be an admin is a blockable offense. Nsk92 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe he just means that he disagrees with a request for deletion. And he wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition. -- Cardinal Biggles 01:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, Cardinal Biggles. Gandupada (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by "cleaning up" you mean cleaning, then it has been done but a lot more needs to be done. (Have you actually read it?) Just now I have removed three of four sources for the same assertion, and fixed the English in the fourth. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lots of canvassing clearly going on here, but little evidence of notability. I checked 2 more items to add to what Xxanthippe found. First, the subject's name is actually quite common and this article may be benefiting from some false-positive associations. However, WoS shows an h-index of about 3 (query = "Author=(Pandey PC) Refined by: Institutions=(INDIAN INST TECHNOL) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI"). His IMS fellow status is also sketchy, for example the apparently official IMS page lists a "Dr. P.C. Pande" – unclear whether this is the same person. Finally, the weight of the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology is unclear – there's actually a template listing the winners, but almost all of them are still red-links. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • As the author of the above seems to be unfamiliar with the fact that Indian names are not English: how an Indian name is anglicised may vary, even in official documents. Variants like "Pandey"/"Pande" (or even "Panday") are common, so that's no argument. And yes, "Pandey" is a common surname. What does that show? Anuragi (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er...this is precisely why I said "unclear whether this is the same person". I think it's also fairly obvious that there are likely to be lots of false-positive hits for people with common surnames. In other words, such people usually appear to be more notable than what they actually are, unless we are duly diligent in removing false hits. Hope that explanation clarifies matters. Agricola44 (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep: By the way, Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology is annual award given by Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India's largest Research and Development (R&D) organization. The above individual seems to have won it, this itself makes him notable! Thanks! Ekabhishek^talk 02:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this [17] source is to be relied upon the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology prize has been awarded 334 times up to 1998. Only 4 of its awardees (including this one) have Wikipedia articles about them so it seems that award of the prize does not make a compelling case for inclusion in WP. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete and salt. It is not sufficient for a researcher to publish work to obtain notability to Wikipedia's standards. To be notable one must have been extensively noted by peers. In the case of scientists it is particularly easy to assess this through the various databases of scholarly citations like Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus etc. Judging by the past records of these academic AfD pages the number of citations needed for notability here is 500-1000 and an h index of 10-15. This candidate has from Google scholar a total of 3 citations with an h index of 1 (Web of Science gives an h index of 3). These values are vastly below those required for notability and are among the smallest I have seen on these pages. There may be a reasonable explanation for the absence of citations; if there is it would be useful for editors to have it. Some of the supporting information is unsourced or of no value, like advertisements for the subject's book. I also see no evidence that the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology is a highly prestigious award. I suspect that some of the non-SPA votes may have been snowed under by the vast amount of irrelevant information piled into the article. I advise salt because of the apparently many previous attempts there have been to recreate the article. I add that if persuasive contrary evidence on any of these matters is produced I will be willing to change my vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. This person has founded two important research institutes, quite apart from his other achievements. Were he in the US, that alone would probably have been sufficient for "notability". To my mind, this discussion is suffering from a very Euro-/US-centric perspective, which is also evident from the remarks above. As an example, citation indices are not international, but Englisch language centric and heavily biased towards "western" publications. They are basically an instrument developed within the US academic structure and geared to this, but the sheer might of the US ensures that this bias is "internationalised". If we do go into notability debates, then we should have a level playing field. This person is notable in India, that's a fact. The question is, is that "international" enough? If this be denied, then I submit that a large part of the entries in the Wikipedia pertaining to scientists or the like in Europe or North America should be remove based on the same criteria. And in any case, he is certainly more notable than most thirdrate singers, actors or sports persons in the Wikipedia, if achievements are a yardstick. But, as an author whose name I unfortunately don't remember, remarked: "The moron who uses the moog synthesiser earns several thousand times more than the person who invented it." This seems, mutatis mutandis, applicable to "notability" too. Anuragi (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The shanti swarup Bhatnagar award is the highest official award for science in India. The award is presented personally by the prime minister of India. As with other awards with state patronage, whether the winners are selected because they are actually good at what they do becomes a side issue in this award - persons with political clout, persons who are actually administrators rather than researchers end up getting it sometimes. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Every prize granted by a political authority may be misused; this also applies to Medals of Valor, or whatever. The important point is that the Bhatnagar award is awarded by the Indian Prime Minister, so that anyone who obtains it is obviously considered very notable. That alone should be enough to establish notability. Gandupada (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is not only SSB Prize holder and Founder Director but given base to Polar science and Satellite oceanography in India. He played key role in CORAL, IIT Kharagpur and KBCAOS, Allahabad Universty. Seeing his contribution from Founder Head, Meteorology and Ocean Group divison, Space Application Centre/ISRO to Emeritus professor one can say that his this article page is deserved at notable one.
  • Added in a set of edits, the last of which was 06:39, 17 August 2010 by User:Roseling, whose first contribution this was. -- Hoary (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep This AFD seems to be a mess, but the notability of the article's subject (per WP:N) is not close to questionable. Here are some verifiable facts, any one of which would make the subjact notable enough, under WP:PROF:

• Founding director of the National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (NCAOR), Goa.
• Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences, India,
• Fellow of Indian Meteorological Society
• Fellow of Indian Academy of Sciences
• Winner of the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology in Earth Sciences, 1989

Here is the citation for the SSB Prize, which again establishes real world notabality.

Dr Pandey has made significant contributions to the development of the technique of microwave remote sensing from satellites for obtaining atmosphere and ocean surface parameters. His concept of combining microwaves with infrared derive cloud parameters has been widely acclaimed.

Abecedare (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject of the BLP "has made significant contributions to the development of the technique of microwave remote sensing from satellites for obtaining atmosphere and ocean surface parameters. His concept ..... has been widely acclaimed" then why have these contributions in such an important area that is of interest all over the world not been mentioned by other scientists in the scientific literature? On the basis of the citation databases the subject's acclaim in the international scientific community seems to be minimal. There may be a perfectly sensible explanation for this discrepancy (for example, differences in name) and, if there is, it would be useful for editors to know it. Also, the sugestion that scientists working in India are prejudiced against by the citation databases is untenable. For example, Google Scholar searches for Indian scientists such as "S K Malik" or "E S R Gopal" (chosen from among those who have not received the prize) produce hundreds of citations. I add again that I am willing to reconsider my vote upon the presentation of sufficient evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I should add a note of clarification here. Both the scientists I mention above are Fellows of the Indian National Science Academy, which is India's premier science academy. The subject of the BLP does not appear to be a Fellow of that academy. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Here is the reason for the apparent discrepancy: The subject publishes mainly using the name "PC Pandey" (not "Prem Chand Pandey"), a search for which is confounded by many similarly named researchers in distinct fields (example PC Pandey at IIT Bombay). Google's Citation Gadget, says that "PC Pandey" has 3353 publications and an h-index of 26, but that is simply GIGO! Scopus too fails to separate the Earth Science Pandey from others (furthermore its h-index is based only on post 1995 publications, and miss a substantial bulk of the subject's publications). FWIW, the best way I have found to roughly isolate the subject from others' is through such a Google Scholar Search (you'll note that most, though not necessarily all, hits seem to be in the subjects area of interest).

Of course, we are lucky in this instance since we have independent reliable sources telling us that the subject has "has made significant contributions ..." and is "widely acclaimed". So though it is personally disappointing that we are unable to quote the exact publication number, reliable h-index etc for P.C. Pandey, the notability per wikipedia criterion (namely WP:PROF) is pretty much settled IMO. Abecedare (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your remarks are very helpful. As I surmised, the form of the name is an issue. When I carry out your Google Scholar search in the appropriate topic area I find citations of 19, 13, 11, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 6, 5.... giving an h index of 7. While better than before, this is below the usual bar to assure routine notability according to WP:Prof #1. For a national award one would expect several thousand citations. It would be useful if somebody could do a full search on WoS as its data goes back to before the start of the subject's career (of course, this should have been done by the authors of the article). I am afraid that I do not share your faith in the infallibility of government committees as arbiters of scientific achievement. Scientific achievement is assessed by other scientists, and they make their views known in the form of citations. In this case citations appear to be somewhat lacking. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep as notable and stop discussion about the validity of the article. He is a famous worldwide noble researcher/scientist/ emritus professour at india's prestigious IIT. His contribution in the field of satellite oceanography, polar science and current burning issue of climate change. He has promoted several young scientist in the field of satellite oceanography, polar science and climate change. He is a pillar of atmopsheric and ocean science in India. Indian Government awared him the most valuable prize in the field of science " Shanti Swaroop Bhatnagar Award" and Uttar Pradesh Government " Vigyan Ratan". He is honoured as a " Proud Past Alumini" by the Allahabad University Alumini Association registered under scociety act 1860 registration number (407/2000). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sus 1980 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC) — Sus 1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep the discussion close and remain it as notable article for enclyclopedia. Professor Pandey is SSB Prize holder which is highest scientific awards in Indian Science field and he is also Founder Director of a centre whose functioning is only possible by International MoU thus his contribution is itself prestigious in nature. He is a pace-maker to Polar science and Satellite oceanography in India. The CORAL, IIT Kharagpur found an Important height by his direction although he is no head. KBCAOS, Allahabad University generated Atmospheric and ocean science department in Allahabd University because of his founding by NCAOR Project mode starting. He apart from above is Founder Head, Meteorology and Ocean Group divison, Space Application Centre/ISRO and NASA research Associate who got award from NASA for his contribution.Thus I can say strongly that in India he is hero of Atmospheric and Ocean Science. I have seen many article is running on wikiedia page having much less contribution to the Science. Thus his this article page is certainy benifite to the common people as well as scientific people. I say and request to wikipedia cmmunity to make it notable forever with no future dispute or discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.119.98 (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ’’’ Strongly valid article for wikipedia’’’. It is hidden matter that Professor Pandey is in Shanti swarup Bhatnagar Award committee of Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology in Earth, Atmosphere, Ocean & Planetary Sciences since long time not only Bhatnagar Awardee in the field. If these, Anil Bhardwaj, and P N Vinayachandran are notable article for wikipedia then why Professor Prem Chand Pandey not? This suitable article will enrich the atmospheric science. The every words written at the Indian Time 10.51 AM, 18-08-2010 in the article is correct,valid and essential for emphasis his work in the field. I strongly recommend the article for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseling (talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another new editor. Splendid! (Or almost new, as one day previously you had voted --or in quaint Wikipedia jargon, "!voted" -- here.) How can the every words written in the article be correct, valid and essential, when (just to take one humdrum example) we are told Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences, India, of Indian Meteorological Society,[17][18] and Indian Academy of Sciences? The first assertion of fellowship has no source, or maybe one source or even two (one would have to check, and rephrase accordingly); the second has two sources (or so it seems); and the third has none. This is not a suitable article, it's a crappy article. Thanks to a small number of editors, Sodabottle easily preeminent among them, it's just a lot less crappy than it was when I nominated it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• ’’’article is best one and suitable for encyclopedia in the present form when I giving my view’’’. not only Anil Bhardwaj, and P N Vinayachandran in Earth, Atmosphere, Ocean & Planetary Sciences but also in Engineering Science, Mathematical Science, Physical Science|, biological Science, Chemical Science, Medical Science there are many scientific Indian person’s article running strongly based on SSB award. Dear Hoary and wikipedia administration please close the matter as now P C Pandey’s article in wikipedia till my comment is very suitable article for encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhila pk (talk • contribs) 05:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Notable Article Keep it for ever. Dear Hoary, I have added the Fellow official reference of both Academy in the Article and you can also see here:^[1][2][3]. I hope such person who is fellow of both academy and IMS, Bhatnagar Awardee and Founder Director of a world known Instite is notable in every way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseling (talk • contribs) 06:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• ’’’ Now Article is Perfect Notable’’’. The article is present form can say as most notable for wikipedia. Dear Hoary, why the article is not suitable if your comment of fellow reference have now answered by Roseling. If this article is not notable and entry is so hard then many running article is also not worthy to get entry in the wikipedia which have got entry already. I want to say that the discussion should close and matter resolve by “keeping the Article on wikipedia page for ever”.
  • Added at 07:33, 18 August 2010 by User:Louis gp.
  • I said that the article was a mess and brought up one humdrum example. Roseling seems to have fixed that example. Well, that's an improvement. -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notability clear from sources. AfD should not be for cleanup or insulting articles and our encylopedia's contributers. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• 'The article is notable one in the present condition. Its looks that wikipedia's policy is to cleanup a article by nomination for deletion. Now article has been cleanuped therefore stop the discusion on deletion and keep the artcle. I hope the wikipedia administration is also agree on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.80.234 (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, IP, Wikipedia policy is not to clean up an article by nominating it for deletion. Actually Wikipedia policy is to delete ("speedily", i.e. immediately) any article that's essentially a re-creation of one deleted earlier via an "AfD" such as this. So strict adherence to Wikipedia policy would have led me to delete this without any discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• ’’’Quite clear from discussion the Article is notable’’’. Dear Hoar if P. N. Vinayachandran is notable then why Professor Pandey not if he also Bhatnagar Awardee^[4][5] and a founding Director. I am seeing in the discussion of this page that a mass entry is along with the article and against the deletion therefore conclusion i.e. keep article as notable needed immediately.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseling (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One reason why P. N. Vinayachandran is notable is that he has a high citation record in Google Scholar, having cites of 938, 78, 72,64... with an h index of 17. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Roseling, the comments here signed by you (contribs), by Akhila pk (contribs) and by Louis gp (contribs) seem to me to have a curious resemblance to each other: (a) marking off text with ’’’ rather than ''', and (b) a reluctance to sign (with ~~~~). Would the resemblance be merely coincidental? -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• ’’’Obvious keep it Notable without any further discussion’’’. No, Hoary my independent thought on article by comparing with number of other article on wikipedia is that the “deletion is a partiality with the article” and you only is behind the deletion, and also stretching more and more. The more unnecessary discussion on the article having present form is not praise worthy any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseling (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable: Notability have no questtion.Sources say that Founding Director Pandey is famous scientist all over India and he is best reviewer of the International journals and academician of Atmospheric and Ocean Scince specially polar science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John pkm (talk • contribs) 10:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another brand new editor! Welcome! You say that "Sources say that Founding Director Pandey is famous scientist all over India and he is best reviewer of the International journals and academician of Atmospheric and Ocean Scince specially polar science" (my emphasis). This is splendid news. Which sources? -- Hoary (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• ’’’Notable article’’’. Dear Hoary sources are from Indian and International Atmospheric and Ocean Scientist especially in Polar Science. Are you really interested in discussion? if yes, then a scientist and academician who is SSB Prize holder, fellow of two National Science academy, fellow of IMS, Fellow of Society of Earth Science India ^[6], Editorial Board of national and international Journals. Founder HOD of MOG, SAC/ISRO, Founder of NCAOR, Founder of KBCAOS,IIDS, UoA and play key role in establishment of CORAL, IIT Kharagpur also then how he is not notable?. You are blindly opposing the article in this stage and want to delete it. Are you want to seek secret of his personal life? Perhaps you are biased person by nature, if you not accepting it as notable article. I do not say more than this and will never take part in discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John pkm (talk • contribs) 09:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You claimed that "Sources say that Founding Director Pandey [...] is best reviewer of the International journals and academician of Atmospheric and Ocean Scince specially polar science". Asked to specify the sources, you fail to do so. I am not interested in Pandy's personal life. I'm not even keen to have the article deleted. (I could have legitimately deleted it several days ago.) I infer that Pandey is a scientist of some note (and not, say, a would-be reality show contestant). If I were Pandey, I'd be embarrassed by the multiply-signed puffery on my behalf. -- Hoary (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I still claim it Notable. I will not give any answer if you are not telling why P. N. Vinayachandran is notable and P C Pandey is not notable. I am providing you the few source who know well about Pandey’s work, these are: T.N. Krishnamurti, FSU ^[7], Jagadish Shukla ^[8], Shailesh Naik ^[9], Prof. B.N. Goswami^[10], Prof. J. Srinivasan^[11], Prof. Roddam Narasimha,FRS^[12], Surendra N Tewari^[13], Avijit Gangopadhyay^[14], All member of Meteorology and Oceanography Group, SAC^[15]. This is your need to ask every individual about Professor Pandey. Thanks for your wide heart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John pkm (talk • contribs) 07:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- using the standards commonly applied at AfD discussions regarding academics, this person is not notable: the extent of published work and the attention it has received are clearly insufficient to warrant an article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As noted earlier, this AfD is a mess. But he appears to pass both WP:PROF#C2 (an award that is supposedly the highest science award in India) and #C3 (Indian national science academy), and the article has been significantly improved since its nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are problems with both the above arguments. The citation for the award of the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology states (see above) that the contribution of the subject "has been widely acclaimed", but the citation record with a GS h index = 7 and a WoS h index of 3 (see above), show that his contributions have hardly been noticed. This raises questions about the validity of the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology. However recent awardees like P. N. Vinayachandran have the excellent citation record that is expected. Things may have changed in the 20 years since the award was made to the subject but in view of these questions it may be best if recipients of the award were judged on those of their achievements external to the award. In the present case the citation record of the subject falls well below what would be considered to be the minimum standard for notability under WP:Prof #1.

As for academy membership, it is to be noted that the subject does not appear to be a member India's highest science academy the Indian National Science Academy modelled on the Royal Society which, in view of the prize, may be telling.

I would normally prefer to pass over matters such as those above in silence, but because of the aggressive intervention of the fanboys in this AfD debate I think it is necessary to address them. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment: I think it is not helpful to be quoting again and again a Web of Science h-score of 3 when this has been calculated - as so often in these debates - erroneously. It has been done excluding Institutions=SPACE APPLICAT CTR OR CALTECH NATL CTR ANTARCTIC & OCEAN RES JET PROP LAB , NATL INST OCEANOG, ANTARCT STUDY CTR OR INDIA SPACE RES ORG ) etc etc inclusion of these would I think substantially increase the WoS h-index (but it is still low - my guess would be around 7 (but it is a bit tricky to calculate)). The aggression seems to me to be coming more from those wishing to delete (I think those wishing to delete articles need to be aware or sensitive to the authors and the subjects of biographies - to be arguing someone is not notable and to do so politely is difficult ). And the attacks on Indian National Science bodies and their awards also seems a little awkward and impolite. (Msrasnw (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

More Web of Science data would certainly be welcome but it should be pointed out that the number of BLPs with h indices under 10 that have been found to be notable under WP:Prof #1 is very small, if any. Standards are higher than they used to be, even a couple of years ago. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep Notable. Professor Pandey is a famous scientist and establishment expert of science institution in India for example, MOG division, SAC/ISRO, NCAOR/MOES, KBCAOS and key role in establishment of CORAL, IIT Kharagpur. He is SSB Prize Holder, NASA Recognization and Cass Award Holder(one of the IEEE's old paper in which his biography is publishes not available on line at present) and many other scientific award. He is Fellow of two best academi which itself made him notable. He is fellow of two main body(society) of Indian Earth Science fied. Apart from these as Indias Atmospheric and Ocean Science is near about 60 year old only, Pandey is the person who started to work on upper atmosphere satellies first time and made polar remote sensing his own field in India first time. This made him founder director of Indias First Polar Science Institution. Seeing his speciallities in so many field with help of microwave field primary research in D.Phil. from Allahabad University, I can say he has done best for human being specially in India. His notable point is that he always encourage the younger scientist to do the effort for best science. India one can not remain to escape with his influence if he belongs with SAC, NCAOR, INCOIS, NIO, and Atmospheric and ocean science centres and Institution. Multi-Institutional work of logistic support for Antarctic expedition of 9 year made his familiar among laarge group of scientific person of India and world. Thanks in advance if wikipedia think him notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.122.5 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article makes no claim of anything this person has discovered or how this person has advanced science. As such, his ability to advance within academia is his country is of no encyclopedic value. All the awards are in-house; the National Academy of Sciences, India is located in the same city as this person, and is not the main national academy of India. Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on his Contributions: I think the article used to claim several discoveries and scientific advances which our Professor contributed to. Eg in the deleted copywrite section we had:

* Tsunami Travel Time Prediction using Neural Networks

* A new approach of Ocean Parameter Retrieval using Neural Networks

* Development of a comprehensive Ocean Atlas for Indian Ocean using ARGO data

Also a survey of other winners of his awards and the National Academy of Sciences, India indicate these are not in house awards or an in house institution. Winners of the awards and members of this Academy are, according to my reading, notable scientists from all across India. The fact that we don't have so many entries for Indian scientists is because our encylopedia is not finished yet - not because they are not so notable.

Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "the deleted copywrite section" but anyway here is the article at its most verbose stage; if you can retrieve lucid, reliably sourced information from it, feel free to readd it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this information:

• Copyright No. SW-3195/2006 dated 07-09-2006 on ‘Tsunami Travel Time Prediction using Neural Networks’ by Rahul Barman, B. Prasad Kumar, P.C. Pandey and S.K. Dube, IIT Kharagpur
• Copyright No. SW-3529/2007 dated19 June 2007,on “A new approach of Ocean Parameter Retrieval using Neural Networks” by Rahul Burman, B. Prasad Kumar, P. C. Pandey, and S..K. Dube, IIT, Kharagpur
• Copyright No. L-30729/2008 dated 18 June 2008 “Development of a comprehensive Ocean Atlas for Indian Ocean using ARGO data,” Rahul Burman, Prasad Kumar Bhaskran, Prem Chand Pandey, Shishir Kumar Dube, (IIT,Kharagpur) Ravi Chandran and Shailesh Naik (INCOIS, Hyderabad).

But I don't know if adding it would help. My guess it might help convince some deleters - but annoy other deleters and I don't know if it was removed to improve the article or... Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with the notion of numbered copyrights. They look vaguely like patents. If they are copyrights, I'd like an explanation. If they are patents, I wonder why somebody has the energy to write them up but not the energy to look up the word he's after in a dictionary that translates into English. (If this were an isolated example of wrong wording, of course I'd overlook it. But it isn't.) And of course patents come by the squillion; if these are patents, they may be remarkable and they may be utterly humdrum; it would be good to see independent references to them that might suggest that they weren't utterly humdrum. -- Hoary (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2010 (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.