Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. V. Mathew

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was nomination withdrawn. The only editor who commented in favour of deletion has changed his !vote to "weak keep", and the nominator has stated that he wishes to withdraw. (non-admin closure) Intelligentsium 02:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K. V. Mathew[edit]

K. V. Mathew (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)

Contested prod. An attempt it made on the talk page to address the criteria of WP:PROF, but they fail to pass muster. Previous deletion discussions have suggested that Principals of theological colleges are not inherently notable. StAnselm (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 18:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added three sources. As for meeting WP:PROF, I would say that Pradeep had a good rationale for the criteria on the talk page. SilverserenC 18:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:V. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak keep. Pradeep provides three reasons for keeping on the article talk page:
Claim: WP:PROF #1 is met by 11 citations. HOWEVER, we generally require hundreds of citations, or a reasonable h-index.
Claim: WP:PROF #3 is met by membership of the Society for Biblical Studies in India. HOWEVER, this is a non-notable society (per the AfD discussion of its article), and nowhere near the "highly selective and prestigious" nature of the National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society demanded by #3.
Claim: WP:PROF #4 is met by having supervised doctoral students. HOWEVER, this is part of being an ordinary academic, and does not make "a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional arguments for notability would be the principalship of two theological colleges: Mar Thoma Theological Seminary, Kottayam from 1981-1986 (unsourced) and of Dharma Jyoti Vidyapeeth, Faridabad from 2000-2002 (we have generally leaned away from taking short-term principalships of theological colleges as satisfying WP:PROF #6, but there have usually been some people who disagreed) and his role as Secretary of the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church (an argument outside of WP:PROF). I don't believe the latter is a notable position: the article on the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church does not mention a Secretary role. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Buried at the bottom of the article, I note a festschrift in his honour, and on the strength of that I'm switching to "weak keep." The article needs a great deal of work, however. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a poorly written article! Why wasn't that in the main body of the text? Yes, the festschrift would (almost) qualify him under WP:PROF, though the guidelines say that it's not usually sufficient by itself. But given the other considerations, I'm happy to withdraw my nomination. StAnselm (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think keep. Has a number of publications. Appears to be notable. Bio probably needs work to eliminate nn awards, that sort of thing. bio has had a number of contributing editors, as I recall. Supervising doctoral students should not qualify for bio, by itself. Expected, as mentioned above. Student7 (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having said that, it isn't "publications" that should be counted, but rather how often they are cited by other academics/researchers. I'm getting 400+ hits on google, but a lot of those are bio sketches. There are people who track this sort of thing. Be nice if we could see that list. India is not high on the list of articles with 40 or more citations in all fields, not just theology. Student7 (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Looks to me as if he is probably a notable academic. Ghits are probably not a good means of judging things in countries where the Internet is less established than in the West. There are a lot of Christians in India and it is appropriate that theri leading acadmics should have articles. I have pruned off some of the succession nox items, where it is unlikely that predecessors or successors will be notable, or where it is an appointment without a clear succession. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Agree with previous comments. Keep. However, I would prefer if this article was renamed to reflect his full name rather than initials for first and middle name. It adds consistency and makes it more readable. If he was popularly known as KV Mathew then we can mention that in parentheses in the article summary. Another point: Is Mathew the correct spelling? Seems unusual. Pranay Da Spyder (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the nom has withdrawn the nomination. As to the name, "Mathew" seems to be correct. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. What about renaming the article? Are there any guidelines for that? Pranay Da Spyder (talk) 16:17, 12 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/K._V._Mathew&oldid=1144329116"