Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramayya Krishnan

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) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramayya Krishnan[edit]

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

Another article created by indef blocked editor user:BiH, many of whose paid creations have been deleted or are currently under AfD. The sources are all either dead, unreliable, primary, faculty staff listings, or very fleeting mentions. Bluntly said, the references are the result of scraping the Internet barrel. Without better sources it fails WP:PROF and BLP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As another editor said in a related AfD. A promotional article by a paid editor is an advertisement. Advertisements are not appropriate for Wikipedia and should be deleted. Jbh ^Talk 00:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not the slam-dunk delete that other BiH-created articles tend to be. The subject of the article should be judged on wp:academic criteria, and I think that he fares rather well. He is the dean of a college at Carnegie-Mellon University, and holds a named chair in that college. These are generally the criteria that one looks for in an academic. There's a small amount of puffery, but I generally find the article to be factual in nature. LaMona (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was laden with non-notable puffery and copyvios, but I think I've cleaned out most of it. He obviously passes WP:PROF#C5 and also #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the standards of WP:Prof. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:46, 25 September 2015 (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.