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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aravind L Iyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable figure. Could not find anything in google when searched Arvind L Iyer.. This article is Orphan as well as stub since last 5 years. Previous afd was Keep on the ground that subject has published papers, but nothing such thing is cited on the article with reliable sources! Article is not sourced, or sourced with only the employers websites, which are considered as primary source. An article worth 2-3 lines neither help subject, nor the readers and overall may become a burden on WP as a stub! This afd nomination thrusts to either delete this article completely and improve it to at least better state so that it does not go in afd again and again. Educationtemple (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - widely cited, h-index for L. Aravind is >100. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the same reasons as I gave in the first AfD (high citations giving a pass of WP:PROF#C1), which was withdrawn after its nominator realized that the nomination was a mistake. Did the nominator this time not even read it? Or if he or she did read it, what on earth led to the belief that something would be different this time? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep despite the sketchy article. It needs expansion not deletion. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.