Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prabha S. Neeralagi

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prabha S. Neeralagi[edit]

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

Not sufficiently described to make her notable - No significant publications in the fieldDoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough to meet WP:PROF.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MathSciNet counts 7 papers over the last 33 years, with a total of 6 citations. Search for Gnews was unavailing, Gscholar doesn't improve noticeably on MathSciNet. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 17:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and expand. Borderline notability, but on the good side of that border. LotLE×talk 23:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious. What makes you say that? Ray^Talk 23:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The citations to Neeralagi are quite a few more than you indicate. One paper has 33 citations, another 11, etc. That's hardly an overwhelming number, but it's a lot more than the 6 citations you claim, RayAYang. On reflection though, I'll call it "weak keep". LotLE×talk 23:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't consider 11 to be a lot; the 33 citation paper is not by the subject. It's by somebody who cites the subject. Ray^Talk 23:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmm. I hadn't noticed that RayAYang, if the 33 isn't the right guy being cited, I indeed start to waiver. My !vote is a "weak" one, but I'll monitor this discussion, and possibly change it later. LotLE×talk 08:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, prof fails WP:PROF. JBsupreme (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very low citation count. Abductive (reasoning) 11:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fyi- Wikipedia article traffic statistics is another way of measuring popularity especially during afd process...Usually this number shoots up when in demand/in trouble. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 03:16, 7 February 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.