- 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The result was Keep: nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aravind L Iyer (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)
fails WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). There are thousands of researchers and University professors across USA and the world with 100s of publications to their credit. Publishing is their job and that alone doesnt make a person notable. The article fails to explain the impact of his research as will be required to be demonstrated by secondary sources. --CarTick 23:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw the nomination. pls see the explanation below. --CarTick 14:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —--CarTick 00:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, subject to confirmation by someone with access to a better citation metric. Based on a Google Scholar search [1], Iyer appears to pass Criterion 1 of WP:PROF, making him notable. (See Note 1 of WP:PROF.) Iyer being the editor and an article author of the Wiley Encyclopedia of Genetics, Genomics, Proteomics and Bioinformatics would also seem to lend weight to the notability argument. The fact that the article is currently a stub, and could be expanded to explain the man's impact, is not sufficient grounds for deletion. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- well, i have access to ISI Web of Knowledge at work. How many citations according to you will satisfy the criteria 1. section editors are not the same as editor-in-chief. --CarTick 02:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know—why not run the search and see what sort of number comes up? If you have access to the tool and you haven't checked it yet, isn't it premature to declare that he fails to meet the criteron? The WP:PROF Criterion 1 says "either of several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or of a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" qualifies for notability. As for Wiley, it appears to be a notable reference work [2]; it looks like Iyer is a section editor, which doesn't automatically qualify him, but it does lend weight to the idea that he's more notable than many academics. (Looks like résumé inflation is alive and well at NIH, too...) I'm not saying the fellow is Stephen Hawking, but he's not Professor Randy from Boise Community College, either; there's room here for benefit of the doubt. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- google scholar and ISI web search bring up often similar number, ISI search may yield slightly fewer. Again Aravind is a common Indian name.
- we have so many online databases these days, every investigator automaticaly becomes editor of one of these. it is nothing great. for example, [3]
- Besides, in a mediocre Institute like i am working, we have more than 100 professors who will meet the notability criteria which Iyer meets. Pls dont make wikipedia notability a joke. --CarTick 03:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Just counting the papers on which he is first author, I see in Google scholar 345, 285, 282, 237, 221, 220, etc cites. The citations for his other papers are even more stellar. Our article on him is not good, but he clearly passes WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. To add to Eppstein's devastating comment. Top GS cites for "L Aravind" are 7054, 1019, 860, 612..., h index around 80 to give wide pass of WP:Prof#C1. Even in a highly cited field this is colossal. Nominator should read WP:Before before making further AfD nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- sorry. what are GS cites? --CarTick 05:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cited by" counts from a Google scholar search. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i will check these numbers with ISI tomorrow (7054, 11019, 860, 612) if you you dont mind telling me the name of the articles. I just realise i havent even found the bottom of the wikipedia notability criteria. i would like to withdraw the nomination if it is possible. --CarTick 05:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You should be able to read the names of the articles in the link from my previous comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i will check these numbers with ISI tomorrow (7054, 11019, 860, 612) if you you dont mind telling me the name of the articles. I just realise i havent even found the bottom of the wikipedia notability criteria. i would like to withdraw the nomination if it is possible. --CarTick 05:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we all know what being middle author means. i dont think citations for these middle author papers should be considered. I am told H-Index 10 or more is the current consensus. In that case, he definitely passes. it is a pretty low standard, guess i can create my article too. --CarTick 11:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Material hidden by nominator
|
|---|
(←) Thanks Salih. To Xxanthippe: it just happened i am involved in two of these unpleasant wikidramas at the same time. by linking to ANI, u certainly implied that i have an agenda that drives both the dramas, but failed to provide a rationale how. You were comparing apples with oranges. i do fully support evaluating edit history of users. I myself had just called out about 10 (who knows how many) of editors for being WP:SPAs in Nair article. I am also aware that doing so can piss off genuine vandals and responsible users alike. As far as i remember, this is my first afd nomination of an academic and i keep realising i still have a lot to learn. The main reason i nominated the article was the familiarity of the topic and i meet hundreds of people of the man's caliber in everyday life and never thought all of these men qualify wikipedia article. I have to admit, my utopian (naïve) imagination of wikipedia notability is somewhat shaken. This also makes me want to create articles of the thousands of missing researchers. Everybody has an agenda. To say otherwise would be disingenuous. My agenda is to participate in Tamil Nadu and India related articles. Though i try my best to be neutral in my edits and discussions, i wouldnt be surprised if people notice i hold favourable views to some of these topics. I am pretty confident WP:Prof and academic AFD debates are influenced by editors with an agenda to keep the notability bar low for conceivable reasons. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein wouldnt probably have the time to be participating in wikipedia editing. I would say personal agendas are ok as long as it conforms with wikipedia guidelines. That is exactly why we have WP:NPOV. --CarTick |
- Comment. If the nominator wishes to withdraw his nomination he should strike it through and say that he wishes to do so. I expect that will lead to a speedy closure. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 10 October 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.