Deletion of Ajit Iqbal Singh

Comment: per everything DGG said.  She is a fellow of INSA, but it is not known here whether INSA is legitimately equivalent to National Academy of Sciences or Royal Society, so it is unknown whether she satisfies  criterion #3. While that determination might be linked to systemic bias, I have never felt that systemic bias should be used as a keep reason.  What matters is the academic's notability, and citation counts appear too low to support a keep at this time. In academia, citation counts determine your notability and google scholar is showing almost all single digit citations.  Only one paper (where Singh is not the lead author) has above single digit citation counts and that only has 20.  &#8213;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMICS)

Comment: On the contrary, FNAS seems to entirely meet the criteria of  #3. About fifty fellows seem to be elected annually. For a country the size of India, that makes it pretty selective. Given only three of the fellows elected last year, for instance, were women, that makes it an even rarer honour for a woman
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMICS)

Comment: The votes which do not address the issue of notability should be discarded. What is left are three deletes (add mine, it will be four - she does not meet ), and two users ''believe'' that she meets  by being elected a fellow of the national Academy. This one was in my opinion excellently addressed by DGG above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: The argument from #C3 seems rather weak to me.  The inclusionary guidelines at  are usually meant to be used in case there is something of scholarly notability to be said about the subject and their work, which might otherwise fall on the wrong side of WP:GNG.  One should usually expect to see some reasonably high citations on the subject's work or, at least, something on which to base an encyclopedia article other than membership in a society ().  In this case, however, the poor citation numbers fail to bear this out.  (Also, the sources in the article are rather poor.  One of which, discussing her research, says this: "The s include peredbation theory for line operators sic"  which is obvious nonsense.)  Indeed, the subject appears ''only'' to be notable as a member of a scientific body
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:NOTDIRECTORY)