Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Radhakrishnan


 * 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The result was keep: withdrawn by nominator and no !votes to delete. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

R. Radhakrishnan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No independent WP:RS available and article has no sources. Fails WP:BIO. -  SUN EYE 1  08:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator, Other users have added awards and sources and updated more of his works since the nomination. -  SUN EYE 1  04:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -   SUN EYE 1  08:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -   SUN EYE 1  08:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -   SUN EYE 1  08:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The article can use some help but easily passes WP:PROF The Banner  talk 08:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't there by independent WP:RS in the first place. As per WP:NACADEMIC, Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable., are there any reliable sources? -  SUN EYE 1  10:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. The University of California, Irvine, is reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Phil Bridger It is not independent to pass WP:BIO and most of its content is very likely written by him, it even has a section called "My Wikipedia site is: R. Radhakrishnan" and the " Research Abstract" section starts with "I am now completing a couple of booklength manuscripts...." -  SUN EYE 1  12:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The standard for WP:PROF is "reliable", not "independent". It's even explained in black and white in section (a) of that criterion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -   SUN EYE 1  10:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm recusing from this one because I work for the same university, but I added several more book reviews to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is "Chancellor's Professor" considered a named chair? JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That one I do have significant knowledge of (I have both held the title and chaired the committee that reviewed candidates for the title). There's a description at . It's not an endowed chair because it doesn't come with any money (it's just a job title, like "Distinguished Professor"). In practice it's at a level significantly above full professor, roughly corresponding to fellows of major societies (one of the markers the committee looks for in its evaluations). It's a step below Distinguished Professor, though. At the University of California, faculty are ranked at "steps" within each major rank (assistant professor 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, associate 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, full professor 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or above scale). At the full professor level the normal time to progress from one step to the next is three years, but progress is not automatic; each step involves an evaluation of recent scholarship and teaching, and if these aren't good enough it's possible to get stuck at some steps and stop progressing. Chancellor's Professor is separate from the step system but wouldn't normally be given until a faculty member has reached at least full professor step six (so, 15 years from promotion to full), and Distinguished Professor is currently equivalent to full professor above scale (one more step past the highest numbered step, step nine); both of those steps involve whole-career reviews like those to associate or full. We also have titles like "University Professor" that are even higher-level than that. You'll have to judge for yourself how that compares with WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is a lot more ranking gradation than I would have ever anticipated. It sounds like in addition to now being distinguished there's a good chance he's also a fellow of a major society if that's a criterion for promotion? JoelleJay (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, we go to all this effort and for what? Nobody outside the system can be expected to understand it. Anyway, re the fellowship, not necessarily. If he were a fellow, that would have been persuasive evidence that he was also at the level expected for Chancellor's Professor, but he's in the humanities and they don't have as many fellowship-offering societies as the science and engineering disciplines, so more likely other evidence would have been used to make that decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that since our article was written he has become a Distinguished Professor; see his name in the list at . —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Definite Keep then. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC).
 * Keep per C5. JoelleJay (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per The Banner. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is established in the sources. Multi7001 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2021 (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.