Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Dé


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Rahul Dé

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The speedy was declined with "Teaches at a notable school". Notability is not inherited and I didn't find any sources of him being notable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: page has now been moved to Rahul Dé which reflects the spelling of his name in the single source. Pam  D  13:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 10.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. GS h-index of 10 not remotely enough to pass WP:Prof in a highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Deleteas I concur, nothing for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister   talk  06:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This indicates that he has held a named chair at IIMB. I am not familiar enough with Indian academics to know if that institution would meet the "major institution of higher education and research" stipulation at WP:PROF, but I thought I would throw it out there. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly Harvard. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any response to the most recent comment?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC) My rationale for the keep is based on the following considerations - WP:PROF is enough to qualify the notability test. Indian Institute of Management Bangalore can be considered as a "major institution of higher education and research", because
 * Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment - Recanting vote to take a neutral stance per arguments presented by Lemongirl
 * While it may not exactly be Harvard, according to the QS Global 200 Business Schools Report, students of IIM B have the highest average GMAT scores in the world, which at 780 was much higher than Harvard's 730. -
 * Financial Times puts IIM B as the 49th best college in the world to pursue an MBA and the 19th best college in its Global Masters in Management 2016 rankings. -

While notability is not inherited, since WP:PROF specifically allows for pages on professors like him (He is the Hewlett-Packard Chair Professor in ICT for Sustainable Economic Development - ), the article warrants a keep according to me.

WP:PROF can also be considered. Here are some media references.
 * is an article he wrote for The Hindu.
 * is another article he wrote for The Hindu.
 * is an article he wrote for Mint (newspaper).
 * - He is quoted in The Times of India.
 * - He is quoted in the Mint (newspaper).
 * - He is quoted in The Times of India again.
 * - Interview in The Times of India.
 * - He is quoted in the Deccan Herald.
 * - He is quoted in the Business Standard.
 * - He is quoted by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Thanks.  Jupitus Smart  14:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Reopened AfD and relist to elicit any comments on Jupitus Smart's analysis.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete There doesn't seem to be significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Newspaper articles written by the subject are not helpful for WP:PROF. There needs to be secondary sources which explain the subject's contribution.
 * The only possible criterion which might have been applicable is WP:PROF - The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). However, I see some problems here. The concept of a Named chair or Distinguished professor are applicable to a small portion of tenured faculty who have done exceptional research. However, at this institute, I do not see evidence that this is a tenured position. Management schools often have these "sponsored chair professor" positions, but these are not equivalent to the traditional named chair which has rigourous requirements. At this point, I do not think that WP:PROF is satisfied. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You probably did not see the articles in which he is quoted as an expert. Only 3 of the 10 odd articles that I managed to find where written by him. The other articles quoted him, as he is considered an expert on the subject. WP:PROF doesn't require these sources to mention the subject's contribution. These sources that I mention are notable and independent institutions which consider the subject's contribution (which you seem to be looking for) to be notable enough to merit asking for his opinion.


 * The concept of tenured professorship is different in India. Unlike in other nations, Government jobs are largely permanent once you are appointed, similar to the broad idea of job security that tenured professorships offer in other nations. Being appointed for the position of Associate Professor or above in Government owned institutions (the concerned person is a Professor) is generally an appointment till the age of retirement. Also he is the chairperson of the Centre for Software & Information Technology Management, an autonomous centre within the university, something that won't be awarded to run of the mill professors, especially in major institutions like IIM B. And Sponsored chairs are as much named chairs as the other 'traditional' chairs (which are also sponsored by people or by the university), irrespective of what your Original Research may deem them to be.


 * As for GNG, professors are not always the toast of the town in India. But do consider the fact that he is on the Governing council of Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology, the Central Bank of India, RBI's, research and development arm, which makes policy decisions affecting the entire nation. Also consider that he teaches a course on edX which is viewed by students by across the world. These and the regular press coverage he gets as a subject expert is as much notability a professor can possibly achieve.  Jupitus Smart  17:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I had another, but I am still not convinced for a keep.
 * I had a look at every single news report. 3 are written by him, so it's not useful. 1 is an interview which is not useful either. Out of the 6, 5 of them are all in the same time period of Sep-Nov 2009. Many of them simply quote him but do not explain why he is notable or why is he an expert. The only other report was in 2013 where he was again quoted, but there was no mention about him being an expert in something. This isn't what we call "frequent quotation" and wouldn't help to fulfil WP:PROF.
 * The h-index is something which bothers me. Information science is a highly cited field, but I only counted an h-index of 11 in Google Scholar ( seems to have counted 10). This is quite less, much less than someone who I would expect to be tenured and in a "named chair" position.
 * The criteria about "named chairs" at WP:PROF doesn't give a free pass solely due to an endowed chair, it requires tenure at full professor level and the intention of the guideline is to be highly selective (See Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level). In addition, simply because the appointment is to an endowed post, doesn't help to prove notability. If what you described as the tenure process (appointments for life) is true, then unfortunately it doesn't count as a selective process. I looked through some of the profiles of "Professors" in the subject's department and quite a few of them such as the Dean have an h-index around 8, which falls short of what is expected. (Most academics in this field would require > 20). I would really hesitate to call this selective.
 * The autonomous centre is similar to the concept of research centres/labs. These are mostly administrative posts and not helpful for WP:PROF (the idea is to ensure that the subject's work had made an impact).
 * I understand that GNG is hard for academics, which is precisely why we have WP:PROF. In this case, the significant coverage in independent reliable sources is not enough though.
 * Overall, I believe I will stick to my delete. WP:PROF is meant to be there for academics who may not pass GNG, but whose work in general has created an impact. If I do the "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?, I find it very hard to go for a keep. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I really don't have anything to do with this professor. I have begun to realise the futility of fighting for retaining his article when it was not even made by me. I was sucked into this vortex because I voted Keep and had to maintain my perfect record at AfD's. I admit that I cannot even calculate the h-index, and its useless arguing with people who prowl Professor AfD's when I am more of a movie AfD guy. So I am taking the easy way out, and changing my vote per Lemongirl's assertions. Have a good day.  Jupitus Smart  04:27, 4 March 2017 (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.