Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arul Chinnaiyan


 * 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 Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Invalid/inappropriate deletion rationale. Consensus forms that the subject meets notability through reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Arul Chinnaiyan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

What the hell? Z i g g y  S a w  d u s t  19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although very poorly written, it does cite reliable sources that indicate at least a measure of notability within his professional field.  Improve, don't delete.  --Russ (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would like you to explain to me why the artcile does qualify for deletion. I can explain about the significance of the work if it is difficult for people from other areas of work to understand. vcpk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep "What the hell?" is not a valid rationale for deletion. DarkAudit (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * keep lots & lots of papers, large number of citations: 28 papers cited over a hundred times, two cited over a thousand times (really poor quality biography). Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I agree it is a poor biography. I hope others will help me improve. Thanks. vcpk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep another low quality article, but on a notable figure as Pete has shown. (HHMI investigators almost always are, as are people in such positions as Professor of Pathology and Urology at the University of Michigan Medical School. The nom might to better to try to improve articles, and for the  ones s/he is unable to improve, send them, and only them, to afd. DGG (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is in very bad shape and needs considerable work. However, the subject is clearly notable. GoogleScholar search gives top citation hits of 2030, 1600, 1054, 582, 340, 288, 279, 264, 255, 234, etc. These are huge numbers. H-index is 45 per QuadSearch. Again, a huge number. Passes WP:PROF by well over a mile. Definitely a keep. Nsk92 (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added some biographical data to the article to make the subject's notability apparent, including info regarding various awards and prizes he received such as the 2008 28-th annual American Association for Cancer Research Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cancer Research. Also the fact that he holds a named Chair position at the UMich Medical School. However, the creator(s) of the article still need to do substantial clean-up and further work on it to get the article up to speed. Nsk92 (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as the cleaned up version seems to be notable and verifiable. However, if the nom could provide slightly more specific details, it would help us latecomers figure out what the original issue was. B figura  (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a procedural !vote since the nominator did not bother to provide any rationale whatsoever for deleting the article. Come back when you know why it should be deleted. Seems a bad-faith nomination. Edison (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2008 (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.