Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Ray (associate professor)


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ram Ray (associate professor)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article created and mainspaced and GA reviewed by sock(s), see Sockpuppet investigations/PremierePrush. Notwithstanding that, I don't see a pass of GNG or NPROF here. Associate prof doesn't make one de-facto notable and citations are pretty low, though I'm admittedly not familiar with the field. A google search returns little else indicative of any kind of notability. The first sentence here claims he worked on Soil Moisture Active Passive, but our article on the topic doesn't even mention him. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  22:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  22:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  22:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  22:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  22:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. The citation counts aren't quite enough for WP:PROF, with no other notability visible. In normal circumstances it might be a borderline case but given the promotional editing problems and likely difficulty of keeping this maintained neutrally I'm inclined towards the negative side of that borderline. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: this comment on my user talk page strongly suggests that this article was created through undeclared paid editing. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do not see anything I would mark biased positively, but I don't see any negative remarks either. Overall, he does seem to be notable for the field mentioned. I do say it's worth keeping.--Aisnuropulous (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC) — Aisnuropulous (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Well, based on SMAP Technology, he does appear to have significant contribution, mainly through research. It also looks like he has plenty of other publications on reliable publishers such as Springer. I also don't see where you guys see promotional content, because most of it seems relatively unbiased. Given that, there are some places where neutrality is perhaps not maintained, but those are easily fixable, and even I can fix them, but I want to wait until a consensus is achieved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DotDotHand (talk • contribs) 23:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)  — DotDotHand (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete as WP:Too soon on basis of GS citations. Over 1000 is required for this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC).
 * Salt to prevent recreation without scrutiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC).


 * Keep I do see significant citations, which point me in the direction of keep. He also appears to have significant contribution, though it's not listed in Wikipedia. Overall, yes, it is definitely worth it.--Goteramega (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC) — Goteramega (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Aisnuropulous, DotDotHand, and Goteramega are confirmed sockpuppets; see Sockpuppet investigations/PremierePrush. Mz7 (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, spoof. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete LOL I don't think I've ever seen such a stupid sockpuppeter before. Sources are connected to the subject and I don't see significant coverage about the subject. Reywas92Talk 00:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. This is promotional, not a notable scholar. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 00:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - no decent coverage in WP:RS Spiderone  07:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. a) Because we shouldn't be entertaining these brazen UPE shenanigans, and b) because the subject isn't notable. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 00:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete seems to lack sufficient independant coverage to show notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the delete voters. And the sockpuppetry is just pathetic. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:PROF. First off, this is terribly written, and a wholesale re-write would be necessary to bring it up to more than  a chatty blog. Secondly, in 2020, eveyobody knows we are not LinkedIn. Finally, we almost never add articles about associate professors, short of perhaps a woman who has suffered discrimination. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2020 (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.