Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. F. Kapoor


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 03:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

S. F. Kapoor

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Comparatively falls short to become wiki notable, papers are not highly cited... DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several hundred cited papers on Google Scholar. Looks like plenty for notability.  LotLE × talk  04:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. There may be a searching problem here. The number of Google Books hits does not jibe with the low citations seen in the Google Scholar search. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The papers on Google Scholar are papers he authored himself, not papers in which he is cited.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. The name sounded familiar somehow, but a h-index only of 9 or so . Pcap ping  15:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Pohta ce-am pohtit, low H-index, plus we really don't need any more non-notable WP:BLP articles lying around here. :-/   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 17:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Gnews searches were unavailing, MathSciNet reports 29 citations over a career of 30 years (I know Gscholar produces more, but Pcap already provided the analysis there). I conclude that he is not more notable than the average professor. Ray  Talk 22:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I tried some searches for evidence that he might pass WP:PROF and came up empty-handed. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * fyi- Wikipedia article traffic statistics is another way of measuring popularity especially during afd process...Usually this number shoots up when in demand/in trouble. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think traffic statistics are in any way a valid indicator of notability.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC in that he is not "influential in the world of ideas without (his) biograph(y) being the subject of secondary sources."  Kapoor is well published, but he does not appear to be widely cited in other (i.e. secondary) sources.  The three "references" included in the article aren't really references at all.  Two of them are biogrophies, thereby providing a certain amount of evidence against notability as defined in WP:ACADEMIC.  The third is a Google Scholar search, which is not a reference at all.  Unless someone can find secondary sources that are not simply biographies, Kapoor cannot be considered notable.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2010 (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.