Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ishwar K. Puri


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ishwar K. Puri

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable academic. Sure, he has done lots of stuff, but all of an academic nature, and not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry Bazonka (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Unless the professor has established renowned accomplishment or any reference that may establish notability, I will vote for keep. Right now, it's a delete.  JL 09  q?c 15:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Professor with connection to Virginia Tech shootings with New York Times mentions at, , especially since he chaired the department affected by the shootings.   Chairs of departments are usually considered "notable" and here we have a news event reinforcing notablity with mentions in a major newspaper. Collect (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A department chair may be notable with in the academic community, but that doesn't mean that he/she is notable enough for an encylopedic article, even if they are mentioned in a newspaper article. Besides which, Puri wasn't involved in the shootings in any way - he just worked at the location and knew some of the victims. I was at university with someone who was injured in the Omagh bombing - does that make me notable? Bazonka (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 16:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the NYT interviewed you and mentioned you in multiple articles, noting that you were in charge of the people who were killed, and citing your comments about hiring new faculty, etc., referring to the memorial service and you. Yes. Collect (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that. The shootings are certainly notable, as is the gunman. But most of the victims aren't notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. And Puri wasn't even there when the shootings took place! I fail to see how being interviewed by a paper about an event to which he was only marginally connected gives somone enough notability to warrant an encyclopedic article. And in any case, none of this is even mentioned in Puri's article! Bazonka (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Being department chair and having some vague peripheral association with the VaTech shootings don't count for much, but the ASME and AAAS fellows give him a pass of WP:PROF #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I looked at this article long and hard with an eye toward deletion, but the fellowships seem to pass WP:PROF. The connection with the VaTech shootings isn't anything really notable. I think the article may be a bit too detailed, but let's give it a pass. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. GS cites give h index about 16 so reasonable chance of passing Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep Fellow ASME is an indication of notability. Using Scopus, which is much more accurate that GS for the sciences, I see 148 papers listed, which is a very large number, most of them in the leading journals in the field, and with citation counts for the highest at 64, 50, 47 , 41,  32  -  a very good record for a field where citation counts are not the very high values found in the biomedical sciences . Sufficient to show him an authority. h factor is in my opinion meaningless, because h=18 (the Scopus result) can mean 18 papers with 18 or 19 cites each, or 17 with 50 cites, and one with 18. It makes a difference. The first would not be notable; the second one would. There is a good deal of work in scientometrics to try to find one single number to characterise research quality, but no agreement on what it might be-- . the only agreement is that it is not the h factor, certainly not when unadjusted for subject field.    DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 28 January 2010 (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.