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). Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raman Prinja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The subject may be notable, but I doubt that any of the text of this article (whose author has no other significant edits, so is probably the subject) would survive the necessary rewrite. Example: "Written by award-winning scientist Dr Raman Prinja, the exhilarating and accessible text is matched with over 100 incredible images, making this the essential 21st-century guide to the planets and our place in the universe." And that is pretty much representative of the whole tone of the article. Cruftbane 07:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I removed some of the peacock terms from the article. My gut says delete, though I admit I haven't looked too much into the subject. He's a professor and author, and has won what looks to be a not particularly notable award. Doesn't seem to be a particularly notable person. faithless (^speak) 09:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I'm not qualified to judge notability of the award, but I see that he's far from the only winner. Multiple books seem to indicate notability: the latest book got a nice mention in the NYT.--SarekOfVulcan 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This does appear to be a notable author per the NYT write-up which is more than just a "passing mention" of the person's work. The "wrong tone" is a reason to edit an article, not delete it. --Oakshade 06:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The current article is terrible; however, its subject might still be notable. He's a full professor at University College London [1]; I'd not heard of the Pol and Christiane Swings research prize (probably goes under a variety of names) but it seems to be a research prize founded in 1977 with an international scope. Google Scholar [2] reveals high citations for several of his co-authored papers (the top three show 327, 232 & 202 citations). He also seems to probably meet the author guidelines as a popular science writer, per NY Times review from SarekOfVulcan & eg [3]. Espresso Addict 09:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an author: According to the article, Wonders of the Planets is his most successful book. Don't know what they base it on, for only 31 libraries have it, according to worldcat.. But then according to the same source, his childrens books have over 100 holding libraries each. I think that would make it. But as a scientist, WebofScience shows-- under his full name --65 papers, the most cited having 379, 268, 136 108 citations. This is notable as an astronomer. The article therefore needs expansion to show him in a more comprehensive perspective. DGG (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2007 (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.