Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alok Bhargava

: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. Tone 18:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Alok Bhargava]]=

:{{la|Alok Bhargava}} ([{{fullurl:Alok Bhargava|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alok Bhargava}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This was tagged for speedy deletion, but the article does assert some notability so it really doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. Nonetheless, the article is promotional and self-biographical in tone. I'm not convinced it's suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, and thus bringing it to AFD for more input. --Aude (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment if it is promotional and self-biographical in tone, then by all means go ahead and correct that. That's not a reason to bring this to AfD, neither COI not autobio are reasons for deletion, only a lack of notability is. ~~Please check first whether notability can be established before going to AfD.~~ --Crusio (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep The article makes strong claims of notability - professorship at good universities, collected works published by major press, cited by and highly praised by nobelists, etc., and starts RS citation of claims. A glance at the high citation results at gscholar 312, 295, 259, 154 .. confirms notability. Inappropriate tone, clearly written by a newbie but not at all delete-worthy, let alone speediable.John Z (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep per John Z. I suggest the nom withdraws this nomination. --Crusio (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep Sufficiently notable. But it is not wrong for an editor removing a speedy tag and still being unsure of notability to bring it here to see what others think. I too did this a number of times when I was learning. DGG (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

:*You're right, I was probably a bit too harsh. Sitting at home with a nasty flu makes me somewhat over-irritable, I guess.... Comment struck! --Crusio (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

::Looking at the history, what happened is that the speedy deletion tag was removed by WilyD, but a few days later the article creator repeatedly put on a hangon with no speedy there, which puts it back in the speedy deletion category anyway. Amusing, but no harm done by anyone.John Z (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), as noted by John Z. Needs to be rewritten to avoid WP:PEACOCK terms.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2009 (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.