Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Oommen


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator.  DGG ( talk ) 14:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

John Oommen

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This academic does not appear to meet the notability criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. I cannot find "significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources" that provide evidence of meeting any of the specific criteria outlined in notability guideline. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. For the purpose of meeting the academic notability criteria, it is sufficient that they can be substantiated through reliable sources. The sources in this case are the subject's university web pages. These are admittedly not independent, but that is not required: as WP:RS states, self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. --Lambiam 22:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The IAPR and IEEE Fellowships give him a clear pass of WP:PROF #3, and he also has an outside case at #5 with the Chancellor's Professorship. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly passes several categories of WP:Prof. An ill-researched nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep. Contra Lambiam, we can't base a bio article entirely on self-published sources (see WP:RS #5), but I've added an RS on the IEEE fellowship. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the web site of a recognised university can be taken to be a reliable source. Although information about individuals is often supplied by the individuals themselves the institution will take resposibility for the information being accurate. Also, for this BLP, we have excellent cites on Google scholar. The article is well-sourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC).
 * I think we're 100% in agreement on this case, but as a general policy, I think major claims (like being an IEEE fellow) should be backed up by an authoritative reference (which is why I added one). -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And, as is the case in many universities, he has two web pages, one with the university logo, which the university presumably takes responsibility for, and one which he presumably maintains himself. Now I think we can take him at his word regarding what he says, but there have been other people on the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions for which that wasn't true. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, IEEE and IAPR Fellow, passes WP:PROF #3. Nsk92 (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. Persons do not have to satisfy multiple aspects of WP:PROF, one is sufficient. We have WP:RS that this person holds a fellow rank in IEEE, which by itself is sufficient for #3, as Nsk92 and David point out. I think we can end the debate on this case. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Withdraw. Sufficient sources have been added to the article to support the clear consensus to keep the article.  As nominator, I withdraw the nomination and recommend the debate closes.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:36, 15 March 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.