Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajeev Rastogi

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. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Rastogi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. While article has two reliable sources, neither establish the subject's notability. Many other sources are available, most of which are social networking links, none of which establish notability. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being Bell Labs fellow is not enough for C3? Adding to it a GS h-index of 56! Meets C1 (and I am not saying it as an author, I am saying it as Wikipedian first of all).--Mishae (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed with the nomination. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. An h-index of 56 and almost 15,000 (!!!) citations to his articles? Including several articles with over 1000 citations each? (See GS link in article and above). Clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC#1. The article is just a stub and not very good, but there is clear potential for expansion. I don't understand why anyone would take this to AfD... --Randykitty (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty must edit the article, and present the essential points. Only 3 sources of this article are really not good enough, and hardly 2.8k bytes. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I must nothing. AfD is not for cleanup. The article needs work and expansion, but this discussion is solely about whether or not the subject of the article meets our notability guidelines, which he does without any doubt. --Randykitty (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a little more concrete evidence of notability than just a Google Scholar search. I've searched for some of my college professors, for example, and they come up with much more results, but it doesn't make them notable either. Sure, he's written a lot of academic papers, but that doesn't necessarily establish the fact that he has specifically made a "significant impact" in the field (which WP:ACADEMIC#1 says). –Dream out loud (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You linked Google Scholar to WP:GOOGLETEST, which tells me that you likely are not aware of the fundamental difference between a Google search and a GS search. Perhaps you can read up about it when you have a moment and if the difference still is not clear drop me a note and I'll explain some more. --Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I added Yahoo! Labs news section as a verifiable reference, that's the best I can do here. But to be honest, academics are difficult to write about because they don't appear in the news a lot and their "significant impact" is being praised usually after their death (same goes with the artists by the way). That however doesn't mean that every Wikipedian should wait till a specific academic dies so that he/she can write article about it.--Mishae (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stunning cites on GS. Nominator is advised to study WP:Prof before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (highly cited works) and #C3 (ACM fellow). Being a Bell Labs Fellow should probably also count as similar to distinguished professor (#C5) — it resembles the distinguished professor title in being both highly selective and given only to one's own employees, unlike the #C3 kinds of fellows which are more open. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that proper references have been added BUT it's important for the creator to understand the additional work he is creating for others by churning out poorly-referenced articles. Why not just do the work in the first place? Deb (talk) 10:58, 26 December 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.