Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi Arvind Palat


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ravi Arvind Palat

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Alleged books published are one that is just a conference publication (not a real book) and one without even an ISBN. Was prodded seven days ago by someone else with the rationale "no real notability shown, no independent references", prod was removed at end of that period by an account known for deprodded masses of articles without reason. DreamGuy (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable academic autobiography. Hairhorn (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete  Weak keep, see below Only one significant books from an academic publisher; Capitalist restructuring ...; is in over 400 WorldCat libraries, I  Pacific-asia ...  however is just a conference proceedings volume edited by him, not written  in over 200. WorldCat shows about 20 peer-reviewed articles as well. . Probably not yet quite notable. DGG (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not yet notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep Per WP:Academic Criteria 5; he is the Sociology Department Chair at Binghamton Univ -SUNY. This should auto qualify even in the absence of the lack of references for the book? -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Middle management administrative position is not adequate for this category. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Agreed, chairing a department is not indicative of notability; the chair is rarely even the most notable member of the department. Hairhorn (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * changed to Weak keep Actually, chair of a  department at a  research university is a position of   prestige within a subject, and not a routine administrative position. I see he is now full professor there; the article is substantially out of date, as is the cv linked to from that article.  I was judging from that when I made my previous comment. DGG (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Questions? is Binghamton University "a major institution of higher education and research."? What makes a "named/personal chair appointment"? Notability seems to hang on the answers to these questions which have probably been answered somewhere. Anyone know where? Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding prestige and chairs: chairing a department is a management position in a university, there is some prestige involved, but it is the same sort of prestige bestowed on anyone who rises management ranks in a corporation: (the path is roughtly professor -> chair -> dean -> principal/president.) But, this is not the same kind of prestige that's relevant here: being well known in your field, having many published works that are cited by others in your field and so on. The further along you are towards dean or principal, the further away you are from the research community in your field. Of the best known people in my field, almost none are chairs: being chair takes away time from research, and many people consider it a pain in the ass. (Also, don't confuse "research chair", which does have some academic prestige, with "department chair".) Hairhorn (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I endorse the above comments of Hairhorn as an accurate description of the academic world of research. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC).


 * Delete. Does not seem to be making the impact required to pass WP:PROF #1, and no evidence of passing the other criteria either. One edited volume, one book, and a bunch of papers, none of which appears to be particularly highly cited, adds up to an academic record that does not appear to be one of any great prominence. As Hairhorn and Xxanthippe aptly describe, chairing a department is also not unusual and explicitly not part of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 1 June 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.