Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilip P. Gaonkar (2nd nomination)

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. Snow and Speedy keep (nominator !voted keep) —SpacemanSpiff 20:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip P. Gaonkar

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

Dilip Gaonkar is an Associate professor (Not yet reached Professor position since his 1984 Ph.D.). No evidence of any significant awards to meet WP:PROF criteria. How good are his books? - Only professors and rhetoric’s in that area could shed some light. He is not there yet to be notable in that area. Obviously one may say that his work might have been referenced in many places – that is expected because his work is on Rhetoric. Google citations are low for this area. Liberal art deals with enormous readings and writings. kaeiou (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The particular organizational politics of university departments awarding titles in no way bears upon academic notability. A simple search of Google Scholar demonstrates he has authored no less than 30 articles or books, several of which have been cited hundreds of times. I would also refer the nominator to the previous discussion where his notability was clearly demonstrated. Obviously, rhetoricians value his work more than the nominator. Madcoverboy (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pl. see item 2, - "highly selective and prestigious", item 3 - "selective and prestigeous" and item 5 "distinghuished professor" from WP:PROF - sorry.--kaeiou (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person doesn't need to meet all ore many of the criteria in WP:PROF. One is enough, and it was shown in the 1st AfD that he meets criterion #1. PanchoS (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Pl. look into this person of the same expertise with high Google citations [1]. Gaonkar is not yet close to for #1 WP:PROF. That is the bottomline. Thanks. -- --kaeiou (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 245 citations for his 2001 article "On alternative modernities" is something. Also being Executive Editor of Public Culture should make him meet #8.
An alternative standard is "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" meaning that "a tenured full or associate professor in a high ranking institution in the US, or equivalent rank elsewhere, is above the average." (WP:PROF) Reliable, independent sources are not a problem. And the university he is teaching at is a high profile university.
So take this together and there's no more doubt on his notability. The criteria are only thought to separate out the many instructors that are just doing their teaching job and write a pro-forma article every two years so they're not being fired.
He's not high profile, but relevant and certainly above average. PanchoS (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : University where one is teaching should not come to decide WP:PROF. Teaching is not pat of WP:PROF. If that is the case, one would argue how one did not become a full professor being in academia all through until one is 65. Professorship takes 6-10 years from the day one is hired as an Asst. Professor. Also he was not at one place. How would you say the university he is working with is a high profiled one (It might be true according to US college report). Have you compared his school among the universities in the world? About 10 years ago, yes it was. It is no more while rest of the world is developing – US has lesser number of foreign students coming for higher education. Comparatively among other experts (as compared with the other guy in the previous comment), his citations are low(245 vs. 5000 odd) in Google scholar. What public culture are you talking here? Is it American or Asian or worldwide? Public culture that that he is with is not a high ranked institution in the world. (We need citations). I don’t find anything you wrote are part of WP:PROF. I'd like input from an expert in his area. Respectfully - --kaeiou (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Mainly due to his book publications noted in the prior AFD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References and work cited in over 40 international publications, see here, Thanks! --Ekabhishek^talk 04:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per comments in the previous AfD [2]. Also comparing Gaonkar to Appadurai isn't exactly fair. They are not persons with "same expertise". Though they have the "public culture" part in common, Appadurai's main area of expertise seems to be anthropology while Gaonkar's is Rhetoric.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Whatever you might say – the bottom line is that your work should reflect your position and conversely. With that I’d like input from experts in Gaonkar’s area. Gaonkar's numbers from Google scholar are not there yet to qualify! thanks. --kaeiou (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do see Gaonkar is nominated for many categories. Is he expert on each one of these? American humanities academics, American social sciences writers,Cultural academics,Rhetoricians.

Thanks. --kaeiou (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please close this as it has received enough number of votes to keep in this 2nd nomination. In the 1st nomination, a few changed from Delete to Keep. Thanks. Nominator --kaeiou (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC) --kaeiou (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Executive editor of a journal. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. This nominator has made several nominations on these AfD pages recently that have proved to be a waste of the time of other editors. Please would he take more care in future. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I did not do it wittingly. I did with the good intention of helping to make a wiki page a better reference. I’m not a wiki admin (I do not want to become a wiki admin now – may be I would when I retire from my job) and I do not have all the tools that an admin has. Yes, I made mistakes as anyone else did with the kind of resources (time, tools) that I have. More than half were deleted out of what I nominated so far (Did you notice that?). Thanks for your comments and I’m sorry if that is the way you think. To be honest, all those who were nominated by me were written by my friends or me (different wiki accounts over the time). We (my friends and I) wanted to check (kind of Litmus test (politics) ) ourselves whether we write junk or we make sensible contributions while WP:PROF guidelines were cloudy for us. Combined with, we have written more than 150 wiki new pages. For what were nominated, what were deleted and what were kept, we were the hors d’oeuvre authors. Others also nominated my articles to remove for which I did not raise my discontent. What consensus contributes to wiki here is a voluntary good will contribution. I do not think it is a waste of time by any means. What I (along with my friends) have contributed to wiki is much more than what I have nominated (they were mine – 99%) to delete. We love to write about those we met or saw as a remembrance of respect to them, but they should meet wiki rules to be called as wiki notables. Thanks to you once again for your contribution and time.--kaeiou (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kaeiou/at par, i guessed something of this sort was going on because you were mostly concentrating on Karnataka articles. As you know we have argued over a lot of AfDs. Initially, i thought you were being disruptive, but soon realised that was not the case. I get what you are trying to do but please take this in good faith - 1) you did not familiarise yourself with how wikipedia works before you started doing AfD. You thought, admins were paid members and refused to follow established guidelines (like doing step 3 of AfD nominations) 2) You refused to follow WP:BEFORE despite being pointed out repeatedly. Several of your nominations have ended up yourself withdrawing the nomination after being pointed out the relevant policy. (like the MLA you thought non notable despite WP:POLITICIAN, clearly saying that all provincial legislature members are notable). 3) WP:BEFORE exists because, if an article can be improved instead of AfDing, it can be done. 4)50 percent hitrate in AfD nominations, IMO is plain horrible. The same end result could have been obtained with 10% of the effort extended (all of commenting, arguing etc) if you had followed WP:BEFORE. I still believe what your contributions are a net addition to wikipedia, but as i put it you during our run in the Mallika Chopra AfD, go a little slow. look for past precedents and read what has happened in previous AfDs. Consensus has already been established in a lot of areas (but not in all). It would save a lot of duplicate effort, if we avoid re arguing the same arguments and concentrate on what is left. Regards,--Sodabottle (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do see Wiki asking donations on their main pages. That made me to think that some are paid if not to all of them. The tool you sent on 3/3 is somewhat useful [3] - thanks. We do read WP:BEFORE but that does not convince many of us in few situations. Someone said that the wiki pages ( a few of them) that I (my friends) wrote don’t deserve credits. That made us to nominate for afd to know what consensus feels about them. The WP:PROF is still cloudy to many of us. What we see in those 9 items is just a theory. There is a lot of difference when theory is applied to the actual case studies. After nomination, I did not leave the nomination scence; I shared my visions on them unitl it got good number of "Keep" or "Delete". Also many feel that that activities on wiki are lethargic at times in many ways. Our recommendation: After writing a new page, it is recommended that, after one month if you think that if someone has flaged it for notability check, you nominate it for an early afd or ask help to nominate. Thanks once again. Take it easy (talk) --kaeiou (talk) 17:46, 6 March 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.