Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apoorva D. Patel


 * 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The result was   keep, nomination withdrawn with no delete votes. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Apoorva D. Patel

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't see how the subject satisfies WP:PROF. Article has only 1 reference, which is a popular science article. Robin (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Err on the side of keep - the article asserts notability, even if it doesn't do well at backing it up, and given that he's from a non-English background and in a highly specialised field I don't feel remotely competent to trawl the sources to check him out. I'd rather see a potentially non-notable article kept than a genuinely notable one deleted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Has he published anything? The article sourcing seems thin... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, author search on "Apoorva Patel" shows his work has significant numbers of citations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- - Spaceman  Spiff  09:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is certainly an issue of false-positives, given the commonality of the surname. However, WoS, using the somewhat focused query "Author=(patel a*) Refined by: Subject Areas=(PHYSICS, NUCLEAR OR PHYSICS, FLUIDS & PLASMAS OR PHYSICS, PARTICLES & FIELDS OR PHYSICS, ATOMIC, MOLECULAR & CHEMICAL OR PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY OR PHYSICS, CONDENSED MATTER OR PHYSICS, APPLIED) AND Institutions=(CERN OR INDIAN INST SCI OR CALTECH) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" shows 94 journal articles and an h-index of 36 with citations 255, 235, 127, ... Though the article certainly needs improvement, the subject clearly passes WP:PROF. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep Gscholar shows significant publications/good no of citations. Also a PROF at Indian Institute of Science, India's premier institute in terms of research and faculty quality, would be expected to pass WP:PROF. - Spaceman  Spiff  18:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per WP:PROF. Joe Chill (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: How come the nominator found only 1 source while Agricola44 found well over 1000? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Cos Agricola didn't use Google. You don't need to know how to interrogate a dedicated academic portal to work here but it helpe. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar is available to everybody. Searching for "A Patel" in the field of High Energy Physics I find cites of 150, 94, 88, 82 etc. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC).
 * The nominator did not claim that he found only 1 source. I said the "article has only 1 reference," which means the present article only contained 1 reference. --Robin (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. However the nominator also said that subject failed WP:Prof whereas the data on WoS and GS shows that he passes WP:Prof #1 very adequately. It is the job of the nominator to produce the citation data and not leave the work to others. "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Fair enough. I just said "I don't see how the subject satisfies WP:PROF," which indicated that I did not see the article assert which part of WP:PROF was being satisfied. The other points in WP:PROF are easy to determine, #1 on the other hand is a bit tricky, hence I AfDed. Anyway, it's clear now. --Robin (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. Robin (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.