Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debajyoti Mukhopadhyay


 * 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   delete. L Faraone  03:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Debajyoti Mukhopadhyay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is not a single secondary reliable source for this article about a computer scientist. Added google scholar shows a maximum of 17 citations. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Actually claims 220 Scholar citations [here]. Per WP:ACADEMIC, falls short or at least WP:TOOSOON (given the many recently published papers claimed). Per WP:GNG, nothing noteworthy.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * delete not notable. In addition, he would currently fail BLPPROD imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * weak keep-- borderline for WP:PROF
 * This is a good illustrations of a career which is notable by the standards of his own country but not necessarily internationally. He doesn't claim 220 citations, he has them, but divided over a large number of articles with no one article getting more than 17. I'd extend him the courtesy of an article.  DGG' ( talk ) 02:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: You are very wrong to say notable by the standards of his own country. India has produced computer scientists like Raj Reddy, Rajeev Motwani, Manindra Agrawal, Ravi Sethi and numerous others. In total 1 Turing Award, 6 Godel Prize and numerous others who fuel the US economy. Solomon7968 (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: In my book Scholar citations are claims until verified. There are ways to double-count working papers and proceedings (thus a big issue for a computer scientist like this subject), such that the exact count needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Even if accurate, though, the count is too low to override WP:ACADEMIC in my reading; all the more since, as DGG, points out, no single piece stands out.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have examined the GS list, and checked the most cited: only a few of the citations are  by his group, but most are by outsiders. That's the usual potential problem. What other problem do you suggest? The list has the usual mix of papers and conferences for the subject.  I consider GS valid unless  there's something to contest--a number of peer-reviewed papers, (COI: a few  but not most of them are by one of my former students),  have shown the equal validity  of its results   with Scopus & WoS, tho GS are usually higher due to its wider scope of inclusion.  Anyway, anybody can check them & see if the citations are noticeably affected by some of the non-scholarly work GS does include.    DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You'd "extend him the courtesy of an article"? Have you asked this man whether he wants an article about himself here (never mind that asking him would be inappropriate)? Do you realize that this is an encyclopedia and not a kind of hall of fame or Who's Who? Have you considered that an encyclopedia article on a wiki may potentially develop negative information about its subject or information that a living person would generally not otherwise want to appear? 2604:2000:FFC0:61:21FD:BEA1:28E:AE4C (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. His citation record is far below the level needed for WP:PROF (especially in CS, which is a relatively high-citation field) and I see no other signs of notability here. And as Solomon7968 says, India has both individuals and universities that rank among the best in the world in this subject, so I don't think arguments for applying lower standards to counter systemic bias hold any water in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable person. It should be deleted quickly. Jussychoulex (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete India is a significant part of the international scientific community, and the subject does not meet the standards for notability we apply to researchers generally, under WP:PROF. Ray  Talk 19:23, 13 May 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.