Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suman Sahai

:{{la|Suman Sahai}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suman_Sahai Stats])

:({{Find sources|Suman Sahai}})

Nomination made on behalf of subject. ({{OTRS ticket|6958361|2013042810004046}}) LFaraone 15:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Obviously notable. Multiple awards. In addition, there is the fact that the subject has plagiarized in her habilitation thesis. This is sourced to a reliable source (Labjournal is a well-respected German magazine covering the life sciences) and confirmed by a statement from the University of Heidelberg itself. Although not yet mentioned in the article, the subject has also frequently been interviewed on German radio and television, in newspapers in India and Germany, and Indian TV stations. There have been repeated attempts recently to remove the information about the plagiarism from the article, but as far as I can see, the information presented is not a BLP violation (in fact, the article in Laborjournal is much more negatively-worded than our article). As Laborjournal writes, the subject is unremarkable as a scientist and would never pass WP:ACADEMIC. However, this is a clear pass of WP:BIO and unfortunately for Dr. Sahai, we cannot only present positive information, nor should we delete biographies of obviously notable persons just because they don't like what we write about them. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, Randy gets this one right on the nose, a clear pass of WP:BIO, and there are many sources available that are not being used (so one should not judge solely by what is currently on the article). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep People who pass the GNG because of plagiarism or other scientific misconduct are still notable, even if they otherwise would not have been. The article in this case is from a RS, and discusses the subject's misconduct in depth and at length, as well as the significance of the plagiarism in the context of her relatively prominent role otherwise. Subject may well have passed WP:BIO without this controversy, this simply guarantees it. Ray^Talk 18:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, per the above. I would also suggest that the subject read WP:PROUD to help understand some fundamental concepts that Wikipedia uses in writing about people; we're not here to whitewash, we're here to document. Deadbeef 20:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Apart from anything else the Padma Shri gets the subject through WP:ANYBIO. That is a highly selective award that has been given to only 2577 people in 60 years in a country with a current population of over a billion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Even without going deeper into the specific notability guidelines for different kinds of articles, I think this one passes the general notability guideline. Respectfully to the subject, I just don't see how this can not be considered notable and the subject's objections aren't a basis for deletion as far as this editor knows. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. The notability exists, so the question here seems to be over the negative content in the article. The content is presented in a fair and factual way, and I see no problem with maintaining it, and with it, the article itself. Ducknish (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Looks like it is snowing. --Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. I have been pondering over this for some time. From the above keep !votes, it is clear that there is no question about the notability of the subject. I understand that if the article is to be kept, it has to be written in a balanced way highlighting both positive and negative information. But, let me ask a question to the fellow editors: Who are we to propagate negative information about a living individual? True, the adverse information is already available somewhere in the net, in this case one of the issues of the 'Laborjournal' and Wikipedia is merely stating whatever the journal says. The problem here is that once the information is available in Wikipedia it becomes highly visible in the net, thanks to Google. I feel that the Wikipedia should not be a party to enhance the visibility of adverse information of a living individual, especially when the subject object to it. We may be able to justify it, to some extent, if the such information is taken from higly visible newspapers. Salih (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

:*Comment I see your reasoning, but I think that it doesn't apply here. To start with, even without the plagiarism case, the subject is plenty notable. For this, the Padma Shri alone suffices, but there are also numerous TV appearances in Germany, etc. Given that, I think that deletion is just out of the question. And once the article is kept, it is not up to us to decide that we won't mention negative information sourced to a well-respected German magazine. --Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

:::I am fully aware that the subject is notable even without the plagiarism issue. You say, once the article is kept, it is not up to us to decide that we won't mention negative information sourced to a well-respected German magazine.. True, I fully agree with it. But, I am against keeping this particular article which can do more harm to a living individual. Salih (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

::::As I said, read WP:PROUD. We're not here to list only the warm and fuzzies about article subjects. We're here to build an encyclopedia. That means reporting the positive and the negative, in proportion to their volume. The procedure for negative information on living people, especially relatively unknown people, is to keep only the information that is well-sourced and relevant, and even then to not belabor it (see WP:NPF). As far as I can tell, everything from NPF and WP:AVOIDVICTIM has been followed. We're not here to do harm to the subject, but we're not here to protect her, either. The best way for her to have avoided the plagiarism section would have been to not commit it. But she did, it's notable, relevant, and well sourced, so it will be kept. Deadbeef 19:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

:::::To my understanding WP:PROUD is not applicable here as it is an essay primarily aimed at the people who want to create their own biographical article in Wikipedia. Here this is not the case. Salih (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

::::::I didn't refer to that article so much as to address this specific issue; it is primarily aimed at those who want their own article written and/or write it themselves. I referred to it for the fundamental principles of Wikipedia it lays out concerning neutrality and our mission not to whitewash. However, I am very confused by your continued insistence on trying to defend the subject of the article (speaking to your other new comment, below, now). I count three sentences in the "Controversy" section. All three of them are well sourced, completely neutral, and completely unspeculative. There is no "judgement" being handed down on the article's part. If she had her "reasons and defense", it would be included in the article. We're also here with the goal of being "fair", as you questioned, but not to skip over unsightly parts. Fair is, after all, fair. I fail to see why, by your logic, you think Wikipedia as a whole should never include anything that might be harmful to or be negative of a person, and perhaps abolish the "controversy" section altogether. That would completely upend the WP:NPOV point of Wikipedia. Deadbeef 05:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

:::::::Let me make it clear, I came to know about this person only through this AfD and I have no intention to defend this particular individual. It seems you haven't got my points. There is no doubt that if the article is to be kept, both positive and negative information should be provided so that it doesn't violate WP:NPOV. I say delete this article for the following reasons: (a) The subject of the article has requested for the deletion of this article, probably because she may not want to get publicized the controversy. (b) It it not fair on the part of Wikipedia to publish negative material, which otherwise, in this case, would have been limited to a life science journal in German language. However, I am not suggesting to abolish the "controversy" section altogether. My point is that if negative materials are already available in highly visible and reliable sources, such as widely circulated newspapers, a section on controversy may be appropriate in a BLP article. I strongly feel that Wikipedia should not have any role in greatly enhancing the visibility of negative materials related to a living individual, especially when the subject of the article object to it. Salih (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

:::::*Laborjournal is distributed to tens of thousands of life scientists in Germany. --Randykitty (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

:::::::Compared to English Wikipedia its readership is only a small fraction. Salih (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

::::::::True, but compared to enWP any journal/newspaper has a small readership. The information is available, we are not censors. --Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::We don't have the right to propagate the negative information of living people either. Salih (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::*I really don't get your point. Are you proposing that any negative information not published in The Washington Post should be removed from BLPs? Or only negative information published in English should be included? How is that compatibel with NPOV? --Randykitty (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::Please read my reply to Deadbeef. You will get the answer to these questions. Salih (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

::::*In addition, this person went around claiming to be/have been a professor at Heidelberg University, although she never was one. And as the article in Laborjournal documents (and this is not even mentioned in our article), she liked to flaunt her awards, suggesting they were much more than they actually are. This strikes me as someone who enjoyed attention, except suddenly when some skeleton came out of the closet. Search on Google for recent mentions of this person online. She still very much seeks the spotlight (but now, of course, avoiding any mention of her "professorship" and this plagiarism case). Somehow this all makes it difficult for me to feel much pity with her... --Randykitty (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

::::::We are not here to judge the person. She may or may not have her reasons and defense for the plagiarism case. We do not know. If I am correct, all the negative commentary about the subject appeared in German language. Now, here we have a situation in which Wikipedia has translated all those negative information into English language and increase the visibility thousand folds. Is it fair on our part? Will it be a violation of BLP. That's my fundamental worry. Salih (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

:::::::We are not here to judge the person. That means providing a neutral article, i.e. providing the bad with the good. She is known for her academic work, and if that work includes plagiarism, then that needs to be reported. Plagiarism is one of the worst sins for academics. If we don't include negative aspects, then we might as well give up writing an encyclopedia.Martin451 (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

::::::::You have not addressed the repercussions (the adverse effects on the individual in this case) I have mentioned if such an article is kept. Salih (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::Wikipedia has an obligation to be neutral. That includes propagating the negative with the positive. If wikipedia does not keep negative information along with positive, then it becomes worthless. The negative effects on this individual could large as it will affect her reputation, but that reputation is built on her academic work, and if she has plagiarised and lied, then her academic work is worthless. The negative effects on this individual are entirely of her own doing, and it is not wikipedia's place to protect her.Martin451 (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. The plagiarism case is too recent to have the long-term attention needed to pass WP:PERP, so I don't think she's notable for that, but the Padma Shri is enough. And, while not the basis for notability, the plagiarism case should certainly be kept in the article; it is well sourced and not mentioning it would be a violation of WP:NPOV. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per randykitty. It would be a bad precedent if we started deleting BLPs because they contain negative information on the subject. This negative information is entirely of her own doing, and effects what her entire reputation is based upon.Martin451 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

: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.