Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasjit S. Suri


 * 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. These are discussions where it helps to have editors knowledgeable about specific notability guidelines participating. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Jasjit S. Suri

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A scientist being a scientist. I do not see evidence of sufficient notability to qualify for an independent article. A loose necktie (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete appears self promotion? Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability. Also suspicious file: File:Jasjit_S._Suri.png uploaded by User:BettytheBeth in the past. Up for investigation in Sockpuppet_investigations/CharmenderDeol? Tracerneo (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Draft The article might look promotional but I think the topic is notable. He has authored books and published articles in research journals as well [1] The article needs to be rewritten again to remove the promotional content. Instead of delete, it can be moved back to draft space. Thanks Fifthapril (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Or it can be deleted as a non-notable subject, and if/ when there are suitable sources to prove notability, it can be recreated. What isn't notable isn't notable until it is. A loose necktie (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America.   Madeline  ( part of me ) 12:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, probably. The dude has 15000+ citations and an h-index of 60 on Scopus, and was senior author on two review articles adding up to 2100 citations and a bunch of research articles with 150+ citations. He has 870 coauthors which unfortunately Scopus can't handle displaying so I can't do my usual network analysis very easily, but I suspect these metrics put him in at least the top 20% of senior researchers even in a high-citation field like medical imaging. JoelleJay (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Citation numbers of 15,000 an an h-index of 60 seem to be sufficient to indicate he passes WP:NPROF, as these qualify as "above average" for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. IEEE Fellow is explicitly listed in WP:PROF as an example of the kind of selective and honorary level of membership that automatically passes WP:PROF. This article is actually in significantly better shape than many of our old stubs for IEEE Fellows. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. As David Eppstein writes, we have usually counted fellow of the IEEE as meeting WP:PROF #3. The citation record in Google Scholar is impressive . Espresso Addict (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep As argued above, he passes at least two of the wiki-notability criteria for academics, thanks to a strong citation profile and IEEE Fellowship. I cut a lot of text that belongs on LinkedIn but not here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: Is the subject actually an IEEE fellow? I did not find him in their directory of fellows, which seemed strange. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * He's listed here, but that is odd. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:NPROF C8 and other subcriteria. Fellows of the IEEE are notable (and I am convinced that he holds the fellowship by the source found by ).  Fellows in the other learned societies likely are as well.  The citation record is also quite solid (as one would expect).  Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2022 (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.