Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gopal Kundu

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. It is clear that there is in fact a significant amount of media coverage of this person, so it is right that we have an article about him. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Kundu

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

No evidence of notability: does not seem to satisfy either the general notability guideline or the guideline on notability of academics. No independent sources are cited. (Deletion was proposed and seconded via WP:PROD and {{Prod2}}, but was contested without explanation by an anonymous editor at an IP address with no edits not on this topic.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and make NPOV, else delete. Subject is primarily notable because of the plagiarism controversy, although that is adequately covered at Scientific plagiarism in India. There are some well-cited publications for which he is lead author (as well as many for which he is second or third author), e.g.:
- Recombinant human uteroglobin suppresses cellular invasiveness via a novel class of high-affinity cell surface binding site (70 cites)
- Evidence That Porcine Pancreatic Phospholipase A2 via Its High Affinity Receptor Stimulates Extracellular Matrix Invasion by Normal and Cancer Cells (65 cites)
- Uteroglobin (UG) Suppresses Extracellular Matrix Invasion by Normal and Cancer Cells That Express the High Affinity UG-binding Proteins (40 cites)

The combination of this work and the plagiarism controversy suggests notability, but WP:NPOV requires covering the controversy if the article is kept. -- 202.124.73.233 (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 202.124.73.233 (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 202.124.73.233 (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 202.124.73.233 (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Contributions by IP 202 have made the article NPOV, and the it looks like Kundu may pass WP:PROF, if barely. I am a bit concerned that the plagiarism controversy is such a major part of his notability that it may fall under WP:BLP1E. Favonian (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2011 (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.