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. Sandstein (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidyanathan Ramaswami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is a non-notable biography of a living person. See WP:BIO for more details. Because this individual has not gained any honors of distinction in the field or has not created any major breakthroughs in the field, it seems that this article is unneccessary. Furthermore, this page does not detail any of his accomplishments.

• Delete. Non-notable, no sources. Renee (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: per A7, no assertion of notability. I see a CSD was filed and removed nearly a year ago; one wonders upon what grounds.  RGTraynor  13:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And ... make that a G7 as well, per the creator's request below.  RGTraynor  16:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 for people. Totally non-notable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm the original author of this article. At the time I created it, I thought that Ramaswami was notable, but after I investigated it further, I decided he wasn't I couldn't find as much material about him as I thought I would be able to. -- Dominus (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am now reserving judgment until I see whether other people can be more successful than I was. -- Dominus (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Am sorry, I am going to be in the minority here! That is the problem with these Damn academics :-) it is so hard to find information on them through conventional sources. As I show here [1]Mr. Ramaswami is quite notable within his given field. 15 Scholarly works along with several patents does establish a claim (be it big or small) to notability. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Err ... did you look at those links? Four of those duplicate a single patent application. Three list his name in "thanks to" sections of other papers, two of them being identical and on mirror sites. Two involve conferences he attended. Two are listed without actual links, and his name is not visible in either. Upon what objective basis are you claiming that he is notable in his field?  RGTraynor  18:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YesHappy to say I did read the links, though four of the sites, regarding the patents seem identical, they are actually all slightly different. Just look at the application numbers. Regarding the conferences he attend, you are right he was there! However, as a featured lecturer! I believe that is pretty objective. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk

Look at the application, not the numbers. It is, in fact, the same method, with various permutations involving four patents; turn over most home appliances and you'll find several patent numbers. As far as the conferences go, indeed, he had talks, according to the materials (although I'd hate to have the 6:30-8:30 slot myself), but what makes you say that he was a "featured" lecturer?  RGTraynor  19:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, since no sources in the article support notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. The article is in bad shape but the subject is notable per WP:PROF. A MathSciNet search gives 53 papers by him. Several are highly cited, per GoogleScholar search[2]. Top citation hits are 448, 194, 112, 103. That's very good for a mathematician. The h-index is 20 per QuadSearch[3].Again, for mathematics this is very good. Passes WP:PROF and should be kept. Nsk92 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some info to the article to address the notability issue. Nsk92 (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Nsk92's comments convince me that the subject is sufficiently notable. By the way, has there been another AfD? I can't find any ... -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, after reconsideration. There don't seem to be secondary sources about Ramaswami (as opposed to his work), and I'm hesitant about adding biographies in border-line cases. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Academics are notable for their work and being the author of highly cited academic work is sufficient to satisfy WP:PROF (see Criterion 3 of WP:PROF). In academia people generally do not write articles about another person until that person is dead (an obituary), or is about to retire (e.g. a seventieth birthday anniversary issue of some journal dedicated to some academic) or on the occasion of winning a very major award (at the level of Fields Medal, Nobel Prize, etc). For everyone else one has to look at the impact of their work on the field, which is most reliably demonstrated by things like citation rates and h-index. That is why there is a separate WP:PROF guideline, distinct from WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is a member of the IEEE and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics. I see he's also a co-author on a book, and was a runner-up for the Wagner Prize in 2004 (link) but he still seems a bit borderline to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody with a degree in the relevant discipline can become a member of the IEEE. I think the same is true for the Institute of Mathematical Statistics.

Nsk92, I agree that Ramaswami satisfies the standards at WP:PROF. But as WP:PROF says, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I know very well that this means that Wikipedia will have far less articles about scientists than sports or entertainment people. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that this clause of WP:PROF is for some sort of exceptional circumstances and that satisfying or not satisfying the notability guideline should be the primary consideration for inclusion. In most cases (in this one in particular) the lack of reliable sources is not the problem. There are 400+ citations in scholarly publications of his matrix analysis book alone. Scholarly publications are supposed to be the "golden standard" of being a reliable source, per WP:V and WP:RS. The problem usually is that the way these sources mention the work of some academic is rather technical and hard for the layman to understand since they are given in the context of a scientific article where substantial specialized knowledge is assumed and required. But that does not make these sources unreliable. As far as I am concerned, any academic, in any field, with 400+ citations of any one of his/her works is academically notable and deserves a page in Wikipedia (or at least deserves for his/her page to be kept of it has already been created). As you say, to do otherwise would put too high a bar for most WP entries regarding academics and scholarly topics and, in my view, would be antithetical to the main purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and detrimental to the overall goals of the project. An encyclopedia is a repository of important knowledge rather than of popular knowledge. Important knowledge is often technical and dry, but important nontheless. As an academic myself, I admit that I am biased, but I feel strongly that scholarly topics should be given at least a slight precedence in an encyclopedia over popular culture topics and should be cut a little bit of an extra slack if necessary. Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The IEEE has 365,000 members, according to our article. Not a sign of notability, more like a magazine subscription. As for this article, if it explained his work, it might be useful to somebody; but not this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am sorry to disagree, but to discount IEEE, as no sign of nobility; “… It has the most members of any technical professional organization in the world”, is slightly absurd! If you do a little research, you will find that they are responsible for both establishing and setting the Standards for a vast majority of the laws that are in place for “Electrical Codes” in the world. Particularly here in the United States. With regards to expanding the article, please feel free to! However, I believe enough information is already given to establish notability, but certainly more is welcome. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non-sequitur. The United States is one of the most powerful nations in the world; that doesn't make membership (aka citizenship) an element of notability. The IEEE is very notable; being one of three hundred thousand members isn't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – My apologies! I read the statement wrong, in that I assumed we were talking about IEEE. Re-reading the statement made by Septentrionalis I see my error and Septentrionalis point of view in a new light. Sorry for the misunderstanding.ShoesssS ^Talk 00:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Google Scholar results cited by Nsk92 show that his work is widely cited. Being on the ed board of Stochastic Models [4] also suggests he is considered an expert by his peers. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Nsk92's Google scholar results. But to all the people trying to argue that IEEE membership is a sign of notability: please, no. IEEE Fellow, maybe, though they're a bit less selective in their choice of fellows than some other societies. But pretty much anyone can be an IEEE member. The only thing it says about someone is their ability to sign up and pay the modest yearly membership rates. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete I am a member of IEEE, and I have applied for patents. I have also eaten toast with melted cheese on it. I do not see anything difficult, unique or expressing notability in any of these things. I attend conferences, I present at some, I have written white papers that have been published. But I am certain that anybody can do these things without being significant or having any lasting impact on their field. None of the sources provided substantiate any of the requirements for notability for the subject of this article. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:37, 29 April 2008 (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.