Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Mudambi (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ram Mudambi

Ram Mudambi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article made it through AFD before, because people felt it met WP:PROF, but it was a very weak article. Well, since this article's first AFD closed on August 16th, 2007, not much has changed. However, if you look at the article's creator and primary contributor, you will see that this article is a clear WP:COI violation. I'm also willing to bet that 155.247.29.45 is also Ram Mudambi, since there are no other contributions other than this article. I don't see this article ever improving, because no one cares about it, but Ram Mudambi himself. There is not a single link to the article, other than the first AFD discussion, this one, a COI page, and the creator's talk page. There are no sources, so therefore it fails WP:V as well. Jauerback 02:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - There is not enought reliable source material independent of Ram Mudambi to write a Wikipedia article on Ram Mudambi. Mudambi seems to have written some material, but that information is not independent of Mudambi. Mudambi seems to have made some findings in 1998 that others have found of interest. But that is not enough information to build an article on. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Temple is a research university--though not of the very highest rank, and I wouldn't automatically think full professors there notable. He holds a named research fellowship, but its hard to tell the significance of that. Of the 50 papers mentioned, 36 are in Web of Science, top ones being cited 25, 13, 12, 10 times. Six books are listed on his web page, not mentioned here specifically, so I've added them. they are widely held, but its hardly an esoteric field. (I havent looked for reviews) There are two with major publishers, both as coeditor. I dont know the citation standards in the field. I resolve the balance by deciding that the Business School at Temple is smarter than WP at judging these things, but it is possible that just the reverse is true. The editors who accept his publications are independent of him, so i dont worry about that. DGG (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per DGG reasoning.Callelinea 05:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - First of all, I want to express that I completely respect DGG and his opinions. I know he focuses on establishing notability to university professors. So, a Week Keep from him almost feels like a Delete from almost anyone else when it comes to a professor. With a weak claim to notability, and all the other problems with this article, I still feel very strong on deletion. Jauerback 14:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I consider the information I found could support either view; I gave the data, but I am very uncomfortable with suggestions that people should follow my views rather than their own. Perhaps the best way of wording it is that I generally feel on all topics that if in doubt, we should keep. But that's just my 2cents. DGG (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• strong keep nominator wants the article improved, not deleted. WP:V and COI are reasons for improvement more than deletion, afd is not a means for improving articles, it is for deleting articles. passes wp:prof--Buridan 11:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - No, I want it deleted. If I wanted it improved, I would have improved it. Jauerback 15:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

then why didn't your provide a reason beyond things that can be improved? --Buridan 18:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• In my opinion, it can't be improved. As I said in the nomination, he's not notable. He fails WP:N and WP:PROF. Jauerback 18:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

passed wp:prof as far as i can see. to what extent do you argue that he is not-notable? as i can easily see the notable part.--Buridan 20:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Full named professor, with over 50 peer-reviewed publications and six textbooks, several of which are with high-quality publishers, seems to meet WP:PROF. The conflict of interest issue need not be a problem if the subject is notable and the article is factual and referenced. Espresso Addict 17:04, 7 August 2007 (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.