Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Jacob Varkey


 * 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. Sr13 is almost Singularity 05:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Jacob Varkey

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No proof that it fulfils WP:BIO for academics, and googling doesn't show things that make him fulfil it. Nyttend 15:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree. Shoessss |  Chat  15:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Mgiganteus1 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem to be much notable outside Humboldt State University.--Sethacus 15:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Seems to have quite a few noteworthy publications  to his name.  Won an award (although not exactly a highly notable one). JulesH 15:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please try running the search on MEDLINE using PubMed at and the logic parameters "varkey j NOT varkey jt NOT varkey jj NOT varkey jb NOT varkey ja" you will get 10 publications TOTAL for Varkey J. Based on his Genes and Dev. paper he is Varkey JP. Based on his webpage  and wikipedia page, he works on C. elegans. Perform the search again with "elegans" and Varkey J and you get two hits.Antorjal 21:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete no evidence that this subject meets WP:BIO guidelines, lacks non-trivial third party references. Burntsauce 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. May have won awards, but it isn't linked to in the article. Don't make us look it up ourselves, folks. Realkyhick 17:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources asserting notability are provided, but more than happy to reconsider if that happens. Natalie 18:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete the article showed no signs of being adequate, but a simple web search fills it in.  Professors, even full professors, at universities below the Research university level are not necessarily notable, and Humbolt State is not a major research university, so it depends on the publications and so on. There are only six articles, none very recent, but the two best --in very good journals-- have been cited 50 and 33 times respectively.  We are here to improve articles, not delete them.  I've added what I found--even when I am going to recommend deletion it can be worth improving the article for other  people to see, & because they might disagree. DGG (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Well known in India. Well tolerated in Humboldt. DrVarkey 02:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Article creator. -Nyttend 03:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —Espresso Addict 00:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I don't believe full US-style professors are automatically notable, especially at relatively minor universities. Medline finds fewer than 10 papers for JP Varkey & J Varkey (which probably overestimates his publications as there are several people with a different middle initial), although they are in high-quality specialist journals, and two are moderately highly cited. The award is a subject speciality within his university, and so does not seem enough to confer notability. On balance, I believe the subject doesn't yet quite meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 08:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails the standard laid out at WP:PROF. Eusebeus 11:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I had Dr. Varkey last spring and will be taking Genetics with him this fall, he is kind of a jackass but he is a well-respected academic within the second tier of California universities and has made several valuable contributions to our understanding of the genome of C. elegans which most people might not realize is a widely distributed, agriculturally significant nematode.  I recommend a rewrite to WP:PROF standards but cannot endorse deletion.  I don't know if it makes any difference to you people but he brings a LOT of grant money to Humboldt State. 67.55.159.44 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * VERY STRONG DELETE Varkey doesn't even meet the "more notable than an average professor" guideline, if anything he is less notable than a below-average professor. Don't say Humboldt State University is not a research school, a lot of very good research comes out of HSU, particularly in the field of Humboldt County's unique old-growth ecology which cannot be studied in any other location, you mustn't close the door on professors who haven't sold out to the big Research I (i.e. UC system) schools but still do valuable research in underappreciated fields.  Still.  However underappreciated nematode genetics may be, Varkey is a two-bit scientist, a poor team player who overestimates his own importance, and in addition he has been causing trouble for his colleagues since he discovered Wikipedia.  Stephen C. Sillett 02:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP KEEP KEEP  Sillett has no right to talk!  His research is just climbing trees like a damn macaque -- it is scientifically useless and contributes nothing to the benefit of humanityas a whole.  My worm work is fighting to tease apart the wonderful details of sperm production -- pioneering research which has great consequences to all men.  I may not have starred in an IMAX film, or made love with my comely grad student in a love-swing 300 feet above her peers, but I do bring in a lot of grant money to Humboldt.  And my better papers have been cited over eighty times.  DrVarkey 02:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious Delete just see above, Varkey is clueless and keeps posting to his own page deletion discussion. He calls me a "Macaque" which is a crass and prejudiced stab at my physical stature.  There is far more important and vanishing research to be found at the top of a majestic redwood than in a manure pile full of microscopic worms but this is not about whose research is more important.  I have a web page because I have been the star of an IMAX film Adventures in Wild California as well as the main character in the delightful bestseller "Wild Trees" by Richard Preston, not because I am a noteworthy professor although I am a noteworthy professor.  The ad hominem attack on my wife was entirely uncalled for!  I do not deny our treetop lovemaking but I was divorced at the time and Marie has always been a strong-willed botanist, also, her classmates were not directly under our Traeolian traverse (NOT a "love swing" NOT a "marital chair" JUST some tree climbing equipment we made work under the circumstances) but several dozen feet laterally distant as well, and under a tarp.  Varkey accomplishes little, has no personal life despite an annual influx of female undergrads who seem to think he is attractive, and to the best of my knowledge Richard Preston has never written a book about his nematodes and he has NEVER been in an IMAX movie about anything at all.  Why is this even under discussion.  Take away his page, I'm tired of staring at his grinning subcontinental mug every time he defaces wikipages important to me.  Stephen C. Sillett 04:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong KeepI previously posted as Keep but the above exchange has caused me to revise my opinion. I think Dr Varkey has a point, if Dr. Sillett (whose BOT105 class I failed two years ago, fall semester) gets an elaborate wiki presence to sell his attention whoring mass media projects, then Dr. Varkey, who keeps a low profile and produces valuable, much-cited research, deserves a picture and a brief list of accomplishments.  Like I said, I am an HSU student who has worked with both professors, and it only seems fair to include Dr. Varkey if you are going to include Dr. Sillett since both are pretty similar, self-absorbed jerks doing marginal research at a glorified community college 400 miles from anywhere. P.S. I do not believe this is the appropriate forum for these two rivals to "have it out," their mutual antagonism has been well-documented at HSU and there is no reason for it to spill over into a neutral forum like Wikipedia.  67.55.159.44 04:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Would it be appropriate to check via other channels (such as emails to the parties involved, or WP:SSP) whether the "DrVarkey" and "Stephen C. Sillett" posting here are really who they say they are? The past sequence of comments by them and 67.55.159.44 gives me the strong impression of a single person trying to stir up controversy via sockpuppets, and none of these users has a contribution history longer than the past few days. —David Eppstein 05:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Edited to add: I opened an SSP case immediately, rather than waiting for more evidence or opinions, because of the significant WP:BLP considerations if sockpuppetry turn out to be true. Suspected sock puppets/67.55.159.44. —David Eppstein 05:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Note the thinly-veiled inflammatory, racist, chauvinistic, and derogatory nature of the comments of the parties involved. Also, note the flippant comic tone in making such allegations. In addition, the points are made without respect for NPOV, civility, or good-faith and are made to obfuscate the issue of whether the article should be deleted or not. All point to a case where sockpuppetry might be involved. I agree that the parties involved might be contacted directly. Also, even if sockpuppetry is not established, emails might be sent to the parties involved and the head of the department. (No head of the department worth his or her salt will tolerate outbursts such as these involving either the parties involved or impersonators). Antorjal 15:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Department chair is Casey Lu. I'd do the contact myself, but disputes etc. aren't my Wikipedia specialty, and I'd rather it be done by someone more experienced in problematic situations like this.  Nyttend 15:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, should this deletion be put on hold, and perhaps the article protected by an admin, until we can be sure that the department head has seen it? Nyttend 15:35, 1 August 2007 (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.