Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N.V.V.J. Swamy

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. John254 00:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] N.V.V.J. Swamy

N.V.V.J. Swamy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - No notability proved with any reference. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep - While I don't think this is the strongest case, there seems to be enough technical material of merit published to be of interest to people in (at minimum) the particular field of expertise. One of my "mental screens" for WP:NOT (don't yell at me, folks, I consider a lot of other things as well) is "will anyone care enough to look this up in 10 years? In 25? In this case, I suspect yes, it's entirely possible. Psinualways forgetsto sign 11:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep, for now... I'm not really that close to the technical field, but from looking at the article it doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements as I see them; namely, nothing there asserts notability that he didn't write or co-author. The article has just been created, however, perhaps a notice on the creating editor's page requesting external sources for notability would be more useful than a delete? It seems like there's enough possible notability to give it a try. Epthorn (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: It would appear that the creator of this article is a new editor. Some comments / deletion warnings are on his page- perhaps he will respond here.Epthorn (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep:This is my first article. Thanks Ephthorn for suggestions. I have added external sources for notability to the article. N.V.V.J. Swamy's contribution to the physics of relativistic oscillator is very fundamental and after so many years his work is still being cited (see citations from 2004 and 2005). Will anyone care enough to look this up in 25 years? I say yes. Thanks for welcoming me to the wonderful world of Wikipedia editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saritepe (talk • contribs) 16:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep among other things, author of important widely used textbook in its period. People will find this relevant now, as well as later. Either is a good reason. DGG (talk) 01:17, 11 December 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.