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. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourav Chatterjee[edit]

Sourav Chatterjee (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)

He seems to be a marginally notable academic. The article has been subjected to edit warring ranging from attempts to stub it to one sentence to adding silly puffery. I'm nominating it in the hope that the claim(s) for notability will become apparent. Pcap ping 05:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 06:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Moderate Keep No results in the world news but he does seem more notable than not being a college professor. Scientific Commons seems to have several essays co-written by him. link Publichall (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is irrelevant per WP:PROF. His main claim to fame is the Tweedie New Researcher Award. It's only $2000, but I don't know if it's prestigious or not. The Gödel Prize is only $5000, but we do have an article on almost every winner, so the low sum money isn't necessarily an indicator of non-notability. Pcap ping 15:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. GS h index less than 10. Article created too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak delete. On track to eventually meet WP:PROF but I don't think he's there yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He has publications, is editor and is awarded. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, perhaps just notable enough. Paul August ☎ 18:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Faculty at Courant is an indication of notability, at least in an indirect way. Salih (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Perhaps doesn't quite meet WP:PROF just yet, but ... I'm going to go for a bit of WP:BURO on this one -- the odds that this probabilist will pass WP:PROF given time are extremely high. Ray^Talk 08:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Associate professor. Very low citation count. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Abductive (reasoning) 18:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it does not exactly require a crystal ball to see that someone who gets a PhD from Stanford in 2005, is appointed Assistant professor at Berkeley immediately afterwards, and only 4 years later is promoted to Associate professor at both Berkley and NYU-Courant is much more notable than the average associate professor. We can use common sense in judging notability, DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have sources saying that? Because mathematicians bloom early, so I could just as easily make up a rule that he should be famous by now. His citation count is 68, 22, 19, 18, 15, 15, 14, 10, 8, 7, 7, 6, 4.... I also note that the article makes no particular claim of an advancement in the field; it just says "he worked on" some things. One has to ask; if every professor works on some research topics, will not every professor get an article? Abductive (reasoning) 03:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The citation 68 is not him, but someone from Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University. But even the other numbers are not at all that low for 2-year-old math papers. He has sort of revolutionized Stein's method, finding striking new applications, e.g., gave a new and simple proof of the Komlós-Major-Tusnády strong approximation theorem (1976) for random walks and Brownian motion, which is a strengthening of Skorokhod's embedding theorem. The original KMT paper has 637 citations on Google Scholar. So, these are clearly advancements in probability, how great, I don't really know how to judge. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Whack-a-mole.3F, I wrote that

He might be exceptionally good, but it certainly seems too early to have an article on him. For instance, I know a lot of youngish probabilists who are more notable than him (say, based on citations of their first ten papers on Google Scholar, or on prizes) without wikipedia articles on them. But, with the current more realistic article, I don't think it matters much if it is deleted or not.

Maybe wikipedia should have articles on those other youngish probabilists, too. Anyway, My “vote” is weak delete, but can also keep. --GaborPete (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The loss of the paper with 68 citations is very damaging to his case, and really should clinch the deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 06:58, 4 February 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.