Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Goundar


 * 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. causa sui (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sam Goundar

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Page on this subject has already been deleted three times (see log). Seduisant (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Why do people insist on embarrassing themselves like this? Three times? EEng (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC) P.S. Salt, too.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The reasons, this person should be on Wikipedia are:
 * Delete Nice resumé, but does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Where is there a record of the article having been previously AFD'd or deleted by other processes? What "log?" Edison (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The previous deletions were all speedy. You see that little "logs" link at the top of this AfD? The last one in the group of links that looks like "(edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Those "logs" do not show the article as it appeared earlier. How can I see the three speedily deleted versions, to determine if they were different from the present version? Edison (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't see them -- that's part of what deletion means. Anyway, it doesn't matter what the previous articles contained -- the question is whether the /subject/ is notable, which needs to be determined from external sources.  If the earlier versions had pointed to notability-lending sources, then those earlier versions wouldn't (well, shouldn't) have been deleted. And if no one can pointed to sources verifying notability now, then the article will have to be deleted again.  EEng (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Sam Goundar’s research has been published in United Nation’s publications, IEEE Journals [highest ranked IT journal], and other refereed journals and publications.
 * 2. Sam Goundar has been selected as an Emerging Leader of the Digital World and was invited to be a panellist for the m-Education conference.
 * 3. Sam Goundar has an IEEE publication and has been the President of the South Pacific Computer Society.
 * 4. Sam Goundar has been conducting research at The University of the South Pacific, The University of Fiji, Bay of Plenty Polytechnic and for the Attorney General of Fiji.
 * 5. Sam Goundar has been the President of the South Pacific Computer Society
 * 6. Sam Goundar has reviewed and edited research papers for acceptance at DEIT 2011 Conference

does the above points not meet the wikipedia criteria for a person to in it--203.167.215.130 (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not! Wikipedia is not a compilation of resumés of persons someone should hire. It is based on reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Perhaps you have confused us with LinkedIn or Monster.com. Wikipedia is not an employment service. Edison (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Accomplishments are not sufficient. There must be significant coverage by reliable sources which there is not. --Kvng (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've numbered the points above.
 * 1. Being published does not make an author notable
 * 2. Being selected as an "Emerging Leader" and being a panelist at a conference doesn't make one notable
 * 3. Being published by IEEE doesn't make one notable
 * 4. Conducting research, no matter where, does not make someone notable
 * 5. Being president of a minor (sorry) computer society doesn't make someone notable
 * 6. Reviewing and editing research papers doesn't make someone notable
 * Nor do all of the above taken together make someone notable. Closing admin, please salt. EEng (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting delete.svg Delete Looks like nothing but a resume. I suggest salt if this ends with deletion. → Σ ⚑   ☭  07:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt. What the article calls publications seem mostly to be in obscure venues or conference presentations. There's not a single paper in WoS, much less any citations. None of the other criteria in WP:PROF are satisfied either. Article has many hallmarks of a vanity page and is nothing more than a CV. This is an uncontroversial delete and I think the salt recommendation made by several commentators is advisable, given the history. Agricola44 (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete and salt as above. No cites anywhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC).

What are you guys talking about? Stop behaving like you own Wikipedia ... look at the guidelines:

You are contravening Wikipedia's guidelines ... a person satisfying just one of the guidelines listed below is good enough ...

Wikipedia’s Notability Requirements for Academics [from Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)]

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

YES: Sam Goundar’s research has been published in United Nation’s publications, IEEE Journals [highest ranked IT journal], and other refereed journals and publications. ISBN: 978-1-4244-8581-9/11 ©2011 IEEE – March 2011

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

YES: Sam Goundar has been selected as an Emerging Leader of the Digital World and was invited to be a panellist for the m-Education conference. 

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE).

YES: Sam Goundar has an IEEE publication and has been the President of the South Pacific Computer Society. ISBN: 978-1-4244-8581-9/11 ©2011 IEEE – March 2011

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

YES: Sam Goundar has been conducting research at The University of the South Pacific, The University of Fiji, Bay of Plenty Polytechnic and for the Attorney General of Fiji ...

5. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

YES: Sam Goundar has been the President of the South Pacific Computer Society http://www.thespacs.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=86

6. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

YES: Sam Goundar has reviewed and edited research papers for acceptance at DEIT 2011 Conference

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.96.67.129 (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC) — 27.96.67.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * (I've reformatted your list to make it more readable.) Your evidence doesn't match what the guidelines say. For example, publication by IEEE or UN is not significanct scholarly impact, "Emerging Leader" is not a highly prestigious award, the South Pacific Computer Society is not (correct me if I'm wrong) a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society, reviewing and editing papers is not being an editor-in-chief, and so on.  Mr. G sounds like a smart guy who's done a lot for the people around him, but that's not enough to be considered notable on Wikipedia.
 * EEng (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. The anon (whose IP geolocates to Goundar's own institution) seems to have a basic misunderstanding of notability guidelines. This is starting to look more like a promotion/vanity effort. Agricola44 (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC).
 * I had resisted the urge to geolocate, but since Agricola went ahead and did it, I followed up. This is, indeed, pretty clearly a vanity page by the subject himself -- compare the deletion log  to User talk:Sam.Goundar and the activities of certain other SPAs (though not all clearly G himself): Special:Contributions/Amit.ashok.kamble  Special:Contributions/Amyth91  Special:Contributions/27.96.67.129.
 * To put the finishing touches on why G is indeed not notable, consider his own webpost from 2007, in which he states his intention to "revive and take over as President of the South Pacific Computer Society, a local IT Professional’s organisation that has somewhat become defunct..."  So much for S.P.C.S being prestigious scholarly society or whatever. Now stop wasting our time.
 * EEng (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Don't forget to delete the photo too.


 * Delete - lacks significant coverage about teh subject, and despite protestations otherwise, the subject does not meet any of the guidelines for an academic. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2011 (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.