Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dayanand N. Naik

: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. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

=[[Dayanand N. Naik]]=

:{{la|Dayanand N. Naik}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dayanand N. Naik}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Dayanand N. Naik}})

Except his two books in Statistics, google scholar report is below expectation for WP:PROF . The books are not popular textbooks outside. No breakthrough work or awards. Dayanand N. Naik a.k.a D. N. Naik fails to meet WP:PROF kaeiou (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Question: How does one evaluate whether a given textbook is widely used, in the context of WP:PROF? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment Good question - those numbers shown in Google are low for good books. Also who are in that academia may know. --kaeiou (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 21:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|Articles for deletion||}}

Weak delete. I think the books are more in the way of user's manuals than textbooks, and that most of the citations carry the meaning "I used the SAS software to do the data analysis for this research and I need something to cite that's about SAS" rather than demonstrating any actual impact of Naik's own work. That is, SAS is notable but I don't think its user manual is. As for Naik's own research, I see one paper with 75 citations and then it rapidly drops off; I don't think this is enough for WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete per David Eppstein's analysis. Pcap ping 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Weak delete. From GS link in article I find cites of 246, 157, 73, 25... h index = 9. Not quite enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC).
Comment 246 and 157 are for his books. Thx.--kaeiou (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

::So what? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC).

::: comment I just wanted to make it clear to users what these numbers are. Nothing perticular. thx--kaeiou (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2010 (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.