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The result was keep, withdrawn with the only support for the delete being based on the withdrawn OTRS request. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pratibha Gai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

OTRS Team Member (verify) - The subject of this article has requested deletion, via OTRS (Ticket# 2016052010015078). Procedurally opening this discussion to allow the community to decide if this article meets the necessary criteria for deletion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. High citation record on GS and other achievements would lead to a keep for WP:Prof, but I support subject's request to delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep on basis of new OTRS information. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Hmmm, could somebody from OTRS comment in more detail on the stated reasons for the subject's request? Certainly, in terms of notability, the subject is eminently notable, even famous, and passes WP:PROF, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Apart from various awards listed in the article (being a Fellow of the Royal Society is already enough to pass WP:PROF#C3), there are many examples of specific in-depth biographical coverage in the newsmedia, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]. We usually don't delete articles with that level of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OTRS Team Member (verify) - We can't comment on specifics regarding private communication; the most I can tell you is that they requested it be taken down. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand the reasons for confidentiality, so won't ask you to confirm this here publicly, but from the article history I suspect that the subject's objection might be to the inclusion of her year of birth, and the year of her doctoral thesis from which her approximate age can be calculated. Maybe you could ask whether she would be happy with the retention of the article without these details? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If that is indeed what she is concerned about, the issue could in principle be handled without deleting the article. The edits containing year of birth in the article history were problematically sourced anyway, and they could be oversighted. It is a bit harder to see how providing the year of the PhD could be a problem, but ultimately that's not a particularly important detail and that info could also be removed from the article and the corresponding edits could be oversighted. The name of her PhD alma mater is included in her official faculty profile page at her school, her FRS bio page and many news articles about her, so that name would probably have to be included if the article is kept. Nsk92 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason I asked is that sometimes the subject does not realize that there are alternatives to deletion, such as revdel and oversight, in case there is concern about specific edits. I hope OTRS has explained this to her. Nsk92 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, per above discussion (the subject's notability is self-evident here), and since the nomination has been withdrawn. Nsk92 (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete subject is FRS, and so undoubtedly notable, but the encyclopedia is not damaged by one less CVesque science bio that the subject wishes were not here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being in a dictionary such as this goes with the territory for someone who chooses to accept election as FREng, FRS etc with all those public distinctions entail. A reason beyond personal disinclination (eg serious errors, vandalism) or evidence of similar requests being agreed to should be provided before deletion. GooglerW (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• OTRS note (verify) - It appears the article's subject was confused about what they were requesting, and have now retracted their request to delete the article. Any of my fellow admins can feel free to close this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:53, 3 June 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.