Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashwin Ram


 * 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 , nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete opinions &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ashwin Ram

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears not to satisfy any one of the criteria of notability at WP:Academic Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Google Scholar Citation record: 830, 266, 139, 140, 130, 112, 99, 98, 94, 78. SL7968 18:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SL7968 18:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SL7968 18:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito ☸ Dutta 18:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Would the nominator like to explain why he ignored the citations? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- obvious pass of C1 based on citations. One looks more closely at Associate Profs than Full Professors, but quite a few at top schools do pass. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep although the article is a clear mess and needs much work to become acceptable. W Nowicki (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination. In reply to the question above, "Would the nominator like to explain why he ignored the citations?": human error. I was temporarily distracted by the promotional and non-encyclopaedic tone, and the blatant copyvio (compare this from 2006 to this from 1999); I saw little point in fixing those if he was anyway non-notable. I'm happy to defer to the judgement of others on his notability - I've no axe to grind here - and so withdraw my deletion request, in the hope that some of those who wanted to keep the article will also want to sort it out. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2013 (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.