Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aditya Akella (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Akella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:PROF. The previous recent nomination was withdrawn without a full discussion. Repeated insertion of copyvio into the page makes one wonder if this is not just a self promotion exercise. Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as clearly non-notable. With two blocked sock puppets and repeated insertion of copyvio material, maybe salting is necessary. --Lockley (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no serious concern if the article is still salvageable. SwisterTwister talk 00:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep on exactly the same grounds as in the first nomination of a week ago. It is the AfD that should be salted. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep as in the previous AfD. As I said there, having a publication with over 1000 cites and 19 with over 100 [1] is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. Nothing has changed in the last week to make the subject less notable than before. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS If the article as nominated appeared badly mangled, it's because it was: JamesBWatson correctly removed some copyvio content, but in the process also removed many non-copyvio improvements, such as a lead sentence that said who the subject was and proper article categories. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Salt/Full Protect. I don't know for certain whether the person meets WP:NPROF, but regardless of the result of this AfD, the new status quo should be maintained for several months. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and No Salting as the 2 users behind it were CU-banned as sockpuppets therefore unnecessary and only needed if they return; as before, notability has been shown for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 00:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepas per Wikipedia:Notability (academics)Light2021 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject passes WP:NPROF. Pratyush (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2017 (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.