Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. V. Loganathan

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 speedy close, with the kind of sources available for the article, this exercise is a waste of time. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G. V. Loganathan

G. V. Loganathan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:PROFTEST. Otherwise, WP:NOT a memorial, and 9/11 is my precedent. -- Y not? 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, I fail to see why many people use the straw argument "he has an article because he died". Their death is either irrelevant, or even pro-article, as death MAY make one notable. The merits for keeping an article should be discussed REGARDLESS of said person's death, and then, deciding whether the death itself makes him even more notable (death cannot make one less notable). Having said all this, since this is a significant incident in history, with a small and verified number of people, all people may be considered notable, if not with their own article, then MERGED into the main incident's article. People who were notable regardless, such as successful professors, SHOULD have their own article; Their death was merely a catalist for an article that would have passed the notability tests anyhow. Romancer Wed 18th April

• Strong Keep, How one dies can make one notable (For example, a member of the military who's life was mundane, but who's death was heroic). This is clearly an example of such a situation. Even if he was a relative 'nobody', this event in history has elevated him from that status spectacularly and tragically. --Daydreamer302000 10:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete along with the other professor articles. If these people hadn't been involved with the Virginia Tech shooting, there would never be articles. I don't think the Jocelyne Couture-Nowak has a place on wikipedia either. Tejastheory 23:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't see anything notable in her article and I'm surprised someone hasn't nominated her for deletion also.-Gloriamarie 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, because he was a victim of the WORST school shooting in U.S. history and as a teacher influenced numerous students throughout his career and as stated in the article had an influence on his field and profession as well. People WILL want to read about these people due to the historic significance of the event, also. --164.107.223.217 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per Tejastheory.--Scheibenzahl 23:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. G.V. Loganathan has some claim to notability, considering that he was an Associate Editor of a hydrology journal, and that he received a number of awards at VT. I think he warrants some further investigation to see whether he was regarded a significant expert in his field(s). I also note that fellow victim and colleague Kevin Granata's article was kept. --Buyoof 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete but not on grounds that its a memorial (because its not). He fails the WP:BIO criteria and is not a widely known professor.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• STRONG Delete WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A MEMORIAL, WHEN WILL PEOPLE LEARN THAT CINEGroup 23:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If the person is "notable", that doesn't change by the fact they recently died and a new article was created about them. --Oakshade 06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep He appears to pass the applicable notability guidelines to me, particularly based on his (a) VT awards and (b) position as Associate Editor of a peer-reviewed journal. It would be easier to !vote if a hydrogolist or someone else with specific expert knowledge could weigh in. --ElKevbo 23:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Assuming he's not notable, just as with Kevin Granata, without knowing the facts or seeing a complete article, is not the best way to go about this. A quick check of Google News found many international newspapers, especially Indian ones, with much information and reporting on this professor in a short amount of time. I don't think he's as notable as the first two professors announced, but he seems to be quite a news story in India and that makes him notable. As a professor for many years, let's wait and see what people find about what journals he's published in and what he's done in his field of research. He seems to have received many awards from Virginia Tech.-Gloriamarie 23:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep They were involved in the VT shooting, so speculating as to whether or not they would be notable in the absence of the VT shooting is pointless. MoodyGroove 23:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
  • Comment What does that have to do with keeping this article? Should every single victim including the injured get an article? Gdo01 23:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the fact that this professor was killed in the worst mass shooting in U.S. history adds to his notability. That's different than, say, a memorial to someone's cat. MoodyGroove 23:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
• Delete per WP:NOT a memorial Flavourdan 23:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Alkivar. This is not a memorial, people, this is a stub of a person who is not notable, and should be deleted for that reason. Kntrabssi 23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable person --MoRsE 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• STONG KEEP From news reports he certainly did have a notable academic reputation. He won the teachers award almost every year for the last 10 years and i'm sure as time goes on, information about his background, achievements, and most importantly what he may have done to save the lives of any of his students (if at all) on 04/16/07. For now, it's simpler better to wait. Majik43 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable for his achievements as a professor and involvment in Monday's massacre. --musicpvm 23:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Majik43. --Neo-Jay 00:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per MoodyGroove, Gloriamarie, ElKevbo, etc. I think the article just need some time. TSayles 00:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable; the article will improve as more information becomes available over the next few days. BRMo 00:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Delete unless notability can be established as per WP:PROF. Just being the victim of a crime does not make someone notable. Please set emotions aside, this is an encylopedia not an obituary. StuffOfInterest 01:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Was Cho Seung-hui notable before he shot killed 32 people? If you can be notable for committing a sufficiently notable crime, then being a victim of a sufficiently notable crime can should be a factor in a person's notability. MoodyGroove 01:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
• Keep Per Majik43. --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — he was a journal editor and won awards as an academic. And to quote WP:PROF "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" (WP:IAR). This is certainly an exceptional case. — Jonathan Bowen 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep same reason as -164.107.223.217 --Domingo Portales 01:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Bduke 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jonathan Bowen, Majik43, etc - Google Scholar has over 200 articles with his name [1] --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 01:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this is one of those exceptional cases where it doesn't matter that he doesn't quite pass the WP:PROF test. The higher standard is: are people who don't already know him going to want to look him up in WP to find out who he was? And I think, because of the shooting, he will be. Not to mention that the article in The Hindu has sufficient depth and importance, I think, together with the briefer mention in The Times of India, to pass WP:BIO. —David Eppstein 02:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable in death. You dont have to be notable in life to be notable indeath, eg Amanda Dowling, SqueakBox 02:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps if he had actually had a notable death, or if major discoveries of his where uncovered after death... but in this case he meant nothing in the grand scale and will not be remembered. Wikipedia is here to store the sum of all human knowledge, until we discover an amazing achievement for man kind he kept hidden, i vote for deletion. --Jimmi Hugh 02:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment You quoted, "Wikipedia is here to store the sum of all human knowledge", and yet you are advocating that we delete some of that knowledge even knowing that this academic worked as an associate editor of a well respected professional journal. You do not get to be an associate editor without having a strong command of the latest research in that area of human knowledge. I'd argue that by your own metric that the article stands on its own. MCalamari 03:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- Why deleting his bio while the rest of the victims bios are kept? Makes no sense. notable or not, his death is a factual information, just like rest of the victims. It is not written as a memorial..
• Keep -- Like some of the other professors he was the associate editor of a significant professional journal. In time his article will be expanded. If there was a significant event in a small California city that did not have an Wikipedia article, an article would surely follow the event. The fact that an article hadn't yet been created does not mean that an article was not merited yet. In the case of people, especially professors, a premature death simply means that this person's contributions to mankind have ended -- which ironically is a better time to start an entry for an academic. As a registered Civil Engineer, I actually know people whom have worked with Loganathan. I would not underestimate his prestige in our profession. MCalamari 02:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Svetlana Miljkovic 02:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep if only to see if the article can be expanded. He's an editor of a notable journal, which is a good start. I'd want the article to flesh out his research and awards external to Virginia Tech. It's simply too early to delete this. More time should be given and then delete if no improvement is made. GarryKosmos 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep His death in this event doesn't make him sufficiently notable, but being the author of all those papers and being the recipient of the "Wesley W. Horner Best Paper Award, Journal of Environmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 1995" ([http://www.cee.vt.edu/people/loganathan.html) seems to me to suffice. Nyttend 02:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Editor of a journal and is a victim of a massacre. I was certainly interested to learn more about the people involved. SandManiac

• STRONG KEEP Notable prof and this incident makes him more notable --Grubb 04:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, obviously. God forbid anyone interested in learning about Prof. Loganathan should be able to find information on *Wikipedia*, of all places. Space is limited, people. Obviously this is so; for why else would so many perfectly well-written pages be deleted, even though people are obviously interested in learning about the subjects, and even though it's all backed up by external sources?

In every interaction with the outside world, you "Wikipedians" are so self-centered and petty. Doesn't it violate the supposed spirit of your site to remove interesting, verifiable, and most importantly *useful* information at seemingly every opportunity? 74.66.248.158 04:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT DXRAW 04:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - He is quote notable as a tenured professor, Indian American, and unfortunately because of his death.Bakaman 04:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE - Being the associate editor of a journal or even a tenured professor I don't think is notable enough. Dying in a famous way isn't either, else we should have to write articles for all the victims of the Vtech tragedy. Only a few victims deserve their own pages -- for instance, Liviu Librescu, who was prominent in his field and should have had a page before the massacre anyway. Don't let emotions get the better of you, this is a technical, not ethical question. Pablosecca 04:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I deliberately searched for him so I could learn more about him, as I'm sure many others have and will do in the future. If not for his unfortunate death, then that plus his accomplishments in the academic world are certainly enough to warrant inclusion. Zyarb 05:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no assertion of notability outside of getting shot. A murder victim does not a notable person make. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- what is gained from deleting this article? If you do not find it notable don't read it. Someday people will be writing about this tragedy and this will be resource. We are not publishing, we do not have a page limit, keep the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.47 (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
• Strong Keep - Like the "speedy keep" decision of the Liviu Librescu article, just because a notable person recently died and subsuqently an article was created about them doesn't make the person non-notable. The American Society of Civil Engineers awarding him the Wesley W. Horner Award is a clear example of "notability." --Oakshade 06:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The person IS notable, and just because he died recently does not mean that the page is a memorial to him, though, his death may have triggered the creation of the page. The person was as notable in life as is after death. At least, time should be given to the article to grow in content. Mayank Abhishek 07:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep WP:PROF Notable! 76.109.163.61
• Strong Keep Unfortunately, for those who believe, "Oh it's a memorial, oh it's WIKI NOT" are regrettably wasting their time, anyhow. Rather than asserting my opinion on how these teachers are credible, I will rather point to the psychology of the situation and point how the human emotion fed by the event will feed a positive opinion to keep these articles, at least for the time being. Those who are so against these -- pages -- should wait some time for the mourning to decrease and then present their opinions to a less emotion-drive audience. --132.170.35.167 07:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As per above keeps --Witchinghour 07:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NOT a memorial. - Chardish 10:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As per Oakshade and other reasons above --Sansri88 10:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Google scholar has 316 hits. I'm not sure about the level of the journals, and some are related to teaching, but they are enough serious articles in there too. JeffBurdges 11:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: As a PhD student, I have more than 316 Google Scholar hits and am not notable in any regard. ;) Once you get beyond the top few results, it's all just other people referencing his work or dupe-files. I don't believe Loganathan was an active researcher. Utopianheaven 11:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:PROF, WP:NN... just because the event was notable doesn't mean each person who died because of the event is notable. (As per nom, 9/11.) Utopianheaven 11:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know whether he's more notable for his academic work or for his death, but he's definitely notable if the two are considered together. Everyking 12:39, 18 April 2007 (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.