Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swapan K. Gayen (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Swapan K. Gayen
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject doesn't meet Notability and GNG. ~Moheen (keep talking) 06:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: Missing WP:NACADEMIC, WP:BIO and WP:GNG also WP:TOOSOON in all likelihood. -- Roger editor (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think that anything has changed since the last AfD a month or so ago.  And I still think that there are plenty of highly-cited papers for WP:NPROF C1, including ones as first/last author (in a field where that matters).  Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. I don't see it's fullfill "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Article has 3 sources which are primary source and there is no significant coverage about this person. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF with well-cited publications on Google Scholar . Possibly speedy as the nomination does not provide an indication of considering the previous AfD or reasons why the outcome should have changed between now and then. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep on "we just went through this" grounds, and the lack of an actual argument to overturn the result of the previous AfD. The case for passing WP:PROF looks respectable, and passing WP:PROF makes the GNG beside the point. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as seems to just about pass WP:NPROF. Also holds a chair position, though doesn't seem to be a named chair? In any case, not sure what's changed since the last AFD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Gender-neutral language seems to have introduced an ambiguity here. In more sexist times he would have been referred to as the former chairman of the department, something distinct from a professorial chair. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nothing has changed in the few weeks since the first discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Question Why was this article nominated again after the first discussion ended in favour of keeping it only a month ago? I will go with Speedy keep here per above and first AfD. ~Styyx   Talk? ^-^  16:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep here per above and first AfD. Is there going to be some wait time before the next AfD? Germsteel (talk) 07:29, 10 November 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.