Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arvind Rajaraman

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Rajaraman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and never been updates. Low citation count, h-index. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:SIGCOV. Very slim claim to notability. scope_creep^Talk 23:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I got this far but was unable to take it any further. Nothing more recent that I'm able to find either. Star Mississippi 23:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Keep per the below info. Star Mississippi 13:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that as well. Just a passing mention. Nothing of significance. scope_creep^Talk 00:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, India, and California. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat) ^talk _contribs (he/they) 02:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. EDIT: Keep. Is an h-index of 30 and 4000+ citations on Scopus low for this field? I could answer this question myself, but he has 740 coauthors and Scopus will only list 150 of them in an exportable format, so the only way to analyze his citation profile in comparison to his coauthors' is to go to each paper and look at each author, which is extremely time-consuming. HEP/cosmology stuff tends to get a lot of citations due to having tons of collaborators, so 30 may indeed by low for his field, although 7 of his top 10 papers, ranging from 102 to 533 citations, have fewer than 5 coauthors. JoelleJay (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JoelleJay: Can you please post the url. There is two scientists both with the same name. scope_creep^Talk 08:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57204257601 JoelleJay (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it might be I've got the wrong scientist. I see how Afd unfolds with more knowledgeable folk taking a look. 08:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)

• Comment. Where's the low citation count? GS has top papers 1039,563,545,431,355 (several with only short author lists), which is not my definition of low. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Because we work at the same university I should probably refrain from a formal opinion even though I don't think we've met or communicated. So I'll just add a couple of clarifications instead. His top-cited papers appear to have alphabetical coauthors so I don't think we can infer anything from author order. The article needs an update: according to his department profile he is full professor, not associate. And he appears to be the incoming chair of the faculty senate [1] but that doesn't count for much with respect to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw that profile on him either as a full professor. I think as a full professor at a major university, he is past the post. Nomination Withdrawn. scope_creep^Talk 05:14, 27 October 2022 (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.