Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anant Agarwal

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. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anant Agarwal

Unsourced BLP of marginal notability. Either it should be sourced or deleted. RMHED (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Took 2 minutes to dig up the sources. Seems to pass WP:PROFESSOR. There are other sources available as well, will leave to others. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF on several counts. An elected fellow of Association for Computing Machinery, that's probably enough to pass Criterion 3 of WP:PROF. Has won a significant award and is a very highly cited academic (see googlescholar[1] with top citation hits of 444, 411, 388, 387, 323, etc; similar results in WebOfScience). Also, frequently cited as an academic expert in conventional newsmedia (66 hits in GoogleNews[2]). Nsk92 (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Nsk92. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rapid Keep The Wilkes award is a significant prize as well. One of a group of nominations placed without any attemt to screen or search. TheACM fellow information was in the article when it was nominated. DGG (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one fell into the ilisteditatacademicdeletionsortingbutdidntbothertovotebecausetherewasnodoubtatallabouttheoutcome category.John Z (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These nominations are getting disruptive. For the sake of a few seconds of his/her own time with Google the nominator is wasting much more of everyone else's time with AfDs. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DGG.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pointless to add to the snowball at this point, but keep. ACM Fellow should be enough by itself, as should the 11 papers with 100+ Google scholar citations each, as should the Wilkes award. Put them all together and the result is obvious. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 3 November 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.