Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Mudambi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable professor. --Swpb 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep He's an established economics writer. Articles needs rewritten, tidied and linked. scope_creep 01:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Weak Keep, and that's only if the article is rewritten, expanded, cleaned, wikified, linked, verified, and sourced, within the course of this AfD.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mudambi&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search 309 Google Scholar hits Computerjoe's talk 19:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the linked search on Google Scholar is for the search term "Ram". A Search for "Ram Mudambi" in quotes shows 220 hits, not 309. At this point, it seems apparent that the article will be kept, and I have tried to wikify it somewhat, but I still feel this debate should give an accurate picture of the subject's notability. --Swpb 19:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - per ageoBakaman Bakatalk 19:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "per ageo"? what arguement did ageo make in favor of keeping the article? The user merely listed the debate on a list of related debates, I fail to see how that is an arguement in favor of keeping the page. --Swpb 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Seems to meet notability requirements, but the article needs wikifyied by cleaning it up, expanding it and getting it better sources. If this isn't done by the end of the AfD in five days, I could support deletion. --The Way 23:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets requirements, the article needs some serious wikification though. Lankiveil 00:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Strong Keep- Noted Writer in economics journals. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 19:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - enough hits to warrant him being here, but it's a very weak article Pete Fenelon 00:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above commenters. Yamaguchi先生 23:05, 14 November 2006
- 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.