Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. V. Vijayagovindan


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

G. V. Vijayagovindan

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

Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:VANITY. No references. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 10:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your rationale behind a speedy delete and the clauses are needed. How does it *clearly* fail is questionable without a rationale. This is a debate, not a vote please. Please provide a coherent and logical argument to support a *speedy* delete. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nichalp. Although I am leaning towards delete, this is not a speedy case and it is also incorrect that there are no references. The article does list a number of papers by the subject published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Nsk92 (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —John Z (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   —  Salih  ( talk ) 14:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- no opinion yet, leaning to keep. Google books does throw some interesting results. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar lists some more interesting results. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Reads like a standard resume for a university faculty, plus the person is not even a professor. Has no significant notability besides a few academic publications, a standard for such a faculty and barely meets WP:PROF. LeaveSleaves talk 15:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. That depends on your definition of professor. A reader is roughly equivalent to an associate professor in the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, not in India. Somewhat equivalent to the British term, a reader is equivalent to a lecturer in India. LeaveSleaves talk 19:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I worded that badly. I meant a reader in India is the equivalent of an associate professor in the US, i.e. the rank below a full professor. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge. Then again, the defining line is blur and sometimes university specific. I was trying to use that point to gauge the extent of the person's work in the area. LeaveSleaves talk 20:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Google Scholar gives 15 hits. Top citation count is for the first hit, 34 citations. He is the 2nd author on that one (three authors; first author is A.M. Jayannavar). The other entries from Google Scholar have 3, 1 or fewer citations. Google News returns zero hits. More specialized databases (Academic Source Complete, ScienceDirect) show few hits and no citations. Could not find evidence that he satisfies any of the WP:PROF criteria.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF based on the information available. As Eric Yurken noted, GoogleScholar results do not show significant citability (which would be expected in a field like physics, with active publication rate) and the results in WebOfScience are similar (there are 7 papers under his name listed there, with citation hits 31, 19, 4, 1, 1, 0, 0). I don't see any other evidence of passing WP:PROF, such as significant academic awards, journal editorships, prestigious lectures etc. Nsk92 (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:PROF, per Nsk92 Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:52, 8 November 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.