Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harish Gaonkar

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 speedy keep. Nominator has changed their position to the subject being notable, no outstanding delete arguments —SpacemanSpiff 22:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harish Gaonkar

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

Gaonkar is wiki notable. This I realized now after going through these discussions. Lots of things are confusing on wiki. It does not say that Butterfly expert is wiki notable like all politicians are wiki notable. Sorry for the inconvinience.

DoNotTellDoNotAsk (--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC) )--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a case for improving the article, not deleting it. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. This butterfly scholar has slim CS cites but I don't suppose that general level of cites is as high in that subject as, for instance, in string theory. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Appears to have made significant contributions to his particular discipline. The article is no longer an orphan, by the way. His name appeared in a couple of butterfly articles, but without links, and several more use his book as a reference. Favonian (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although Gaonkar wrote a cited catalog of South Indian butterflies, references only mention him. No other biographical information is provided by sources. I am uncertain that there is enough here to fulfill the criteria of a biography of a living person. I note that he is not mentioned in online searches at the University of Copenhagen Zoological Museum nor the London Natural History Museum. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep apparently an expert on South Indian butterflies, DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable academic positions and strong publications (in an esoteric area, not general readership). LotLE×talk 23:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easy enough to find references. What is the point of proposing deletion of obviously sound and informative article when a quick check would find references, rather than either wasting other people's time or throwing useful information into the bin? "Global Butterfly Names" proposal to ECAT programme of GBIF by J. Mallet, Prof. of Biological Diversity, University College London (referring to "major collaboration" between developed and developing countries, backed by Natural History Museum, London to provide open, online, complete and up-to-date "database of all ~80,000 names applied to ~17,500 butterfly species" - Gaonkar is one of the NHM staff members, postdocs, and scientific associates "with leading skills in butterfly taxonomy" "representing a critical mass of professional expertise unmatched elsewhere".[1]; cited in acknowledgments as advisor on text of "Moths of Borneo" [2]; cited but not referenced article in Entomological Science [3]Opbeith (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Almost the only current expert who has done a proper survey on Indian butterflies. AshLin (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator didn't provide any valid reason for deletion per deletion policy. I was going to say speedy keep but on looking up the speedy keep guideline I see that that isn't a valid reason. It should be. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had given the valid reasons. It was in orphan status for a long time (Also I failed to understand why butterflies are so important). It was not clear from the article that he is the only expert on butterfly from South India --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 22:24, 5 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.