Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. V. Vaidyanathan

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. J04n(talk page) 13:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

L. V. Vaidyanathan

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

Vaidyanathan has 29 articles in Web of Science that have been cited 440 times (h-index = 13). Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:NBIO, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPThis person is notable enough.the article is also concise and well referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjohn13 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The account above appears to have been blocked as a sock. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Unless you base your !vote on policy (e.g. WP:NPROF) and indicate how notability is met, your opinion risks to be ignored. --Randykitty (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. GS gives an h-index of 15. On the borderline. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The citation record and the achievements listed in the article are not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the tribute to him in one of the major journals in the field, as cited in the article: when academics die, we are more likely to find material of this sort, which makes it unnecessary for us to evaluate the details of the citation record--because a RS has already done that. DGG (at NYPL) 20:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)

Comment DGG, the tribute is, as far as I can see, not published in any journal but just on the website of a society (unless you are referring to the journalogy link in the article, which does not work for me). --Randykitty (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a signed article on the website of a learned society--I consider it a sufficiently RS. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Described alliteratively as "the Socrates of British Soil Science" in source cited. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2013 (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.