Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kasi Periyasamy


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Kasi Periyasamy

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

Notability not established as per WP:PROF. Every other prof in a respectable university has a similar CV. Seems highly non-notable. Robin (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * G12?? I'm not sure if the qualifies for G12, but it's a close enough copy-vio, the page is an almost word for word copy of this and the book/publications link from there, with the first person text being replaced by third person text. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 16:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 16:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I removed the copyright-violating list of publications, but he doesn't pass WP:PROF. As footnote 5 at the bottom of that guideline documents, Google scholar is better than other commercial databases for performing citation analysis to determine the impact of an academic's work in computer science; but in Google scholar, he has only one publication with double-digit citations, not enough to pass WP:PROF #1, and there's no evidence that he passes any of the other criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Co-author of a book that's been cited 55 times in Google Scholar, but that's not enough by itself to satisfy WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Can't find any book reviews of it, which might help. Qwfp (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep One book from a major series by a very high quality publisher, 5 papers in good journals, and a great many publications in the main publication medium of his subject, peer-reviewed conference publications.  I think this is just enough to show authority. Since the book is an advanced textbook, we need to examine its use, because if its at all widely used he's notable by that criterion.    DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. 28 conference publications starting in 1988 is far from "a great many" and they're all very lightly cited. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Going by the rule of thumb "more notable than the average college instructor/professor", most university professors seem to have this sort of publication list. --Robin (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Firstly, WP:PROF explicitly states that “Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1.” Secondly, as others have already said, 1 book + 5 journal papers + 28 conference papers is actually a surprisingly small number of publications in this field (it seems to be fairly common for computer scientists to have 10+ peer-reviewed publications already when they receive their PhD degree). So if the decision is “keep”, the reason must be something else than the number of peer-reviewed publications. — Miym (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Regarding the 28 conference publications, his CV states "Papers in refereed conferences and workshops". "Refereed" means he was invited to speak, not that the papers he submitted were peer-reviewed. Location (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it usually does mean a peer-review process in which the paper was selected to be included in the program of a conference from a larger group of submissions, on the basis of reviews by the authors' peers. An invited talk is something different. Conference refereeing doesn't necessarily mean much in the way of feedback and revision, just a binary in-or-out decision, but on the other hand it can be much more selective than journal publication — there are CS conferences that only accept 10% of their submissions, whereas a much larger fraction of papers can eventually be published in most journals by sufficiently persistent authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Smart man, but does not yet meet WP:PROF. Location (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2009 (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.