Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shivarama Varambally


 * 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. Special mention to Vivekananda De for making a very well researched and thought out argument in favor of keep. v/r - TP 16:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Shivarama Varambally

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable person. Subject has almost no significant coverage in any reliable independent media. undefined — Bill william compton Talk   13:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the subject does have sufficient coverage to warrant an article in Wikipedia, including an article present in an Indian Magazine named India Today, [here]; a notable Indian news website, topnews, here], ; a the best selling newspaper in the world, The Times of India, here. He has also co-authored the following scientific research papers: Xyn1 (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Monocyte abnormality in catatonia: revisiting the immune theory of catatonia
 * Research Gate Profile: Shivarama Varambally
 * PubMed.gov search of S Varambally
 * Comment Please read WP:PROF. Having published scientific papers does nto establish notability: all academics publish, what is important is whether they have made an impact on the field. Regarding the news sources that you show, these are only in-passing mentions of this person, but not in-depth coverage. Note that two of these articles are, in fact, identical. --Crusio (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Truly speaking I am in two minds because this does fail WP:PROF but it passes WP:OUTCOMES.WP says "Generally, tenured professors tend to be kept, while assistant professors without major awards are deleted".This person is without awards but is a tenured professor according to this.But I strongly suggest removal of facebook profile as a source. With the amount of research behind him and also adding to the fact that he is the professor in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bangalore which is a india-famous institute, I think this article should get the benefit of doubt atleast for now.  Vivekananda De  --tAlK 15:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Varambally is an associate professor according to the link given by Vivekananda De, and not "the" professor there, but one of several. There are several people with the same last name and first initial in the Web of Science, but in the narrower area of neuroscience/mental health, there are very few publications listed with citation counts 12-3-2-0-0-0 (h-index of 2). Too early. --Crusio (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes its true that this person is only a associate professor in the institute.But as I have said earlier tenured professors are generally kept and he is not an assistant prof.I really didn't get the argument of "the" professor.An institution generally has many prof and one head of dept.We cannot comprehensively say that the head of dept. or "the professor" is the only person capable of doing scholarly work and thus eligible for articles in WP. Some times we do ignore all rules. Its just that this person is a part of famous institution and his research is in the commendable area that I am inclined to protect this article or else I would have given a delete. Vivekananda De  --tAlK 12:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're misinterpreting WP:PROF. Tenured professors are not "generally kept". Not even heads of departments are automatically notable. Associate professors (whether tenured or not) are, in fact, rarely kept. --Crusio (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies if it seems that I am "misinterpreting WP:PROF".But I still believe that this article should be kept with regards to WP:OUTCOMES and not WP:PROF because I have already said that this article fails WP:PROF.Sometimes we should bend rules. One thing that I would request you to do is to check this.I had nominated another article for similar reasons and I think your comments might be useful to it.  Vivekananda De  --tAlK  13:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Outcomes" is an essay, but "PROF" is a guideline and therefore supersedes. All "Outcomes" does is inform us that generally speaking, tenured professors are being kept under "PROF", but it is still PROF that applies. Hope this clarifies. --Crusio (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per References, Meets minimum for a stub article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF.Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete He's just as notable as about 80% of the rest of the doctors in the world. Totally fails WP:PROF. Trusilver  21:46, 20 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.