Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Ponniah

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 Delete: As per consensus that the subject doesn't meet WP:PROF.. Sancho 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Ponniah

Thomas Ponniah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Failed notability of biography person. No independent & reliable secondary sources are given. Prod template was removed twice by an anon IP (maybe the sole author himself). The sole author violates WP:COI which forked the article to/from his user page. (Note: I'd prefer to request CSD of the page, but lately I got many rejections of nn-bio article requests by admins; so here I proposed a deletion debate). Dekisugi (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I've read over WP:PROF, and the subject doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria. A COI is possible, as mentioned above. Jd027^chat 01:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't seem to meet notability criteria at WP:PROF. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 04:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC).
• Delete as per nom. Dr. A. Salih (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This takes careful inspection, as notability is not apparent at first glance. However, based on his Google Books result, I see that his book Another World is Possible has been cited several times by other authors. This could be construed as denoting one being an expert in a particular field. Additionally, he has had papers published or works cited by a number of academic journals or educational institutions (see his Google Scholar results). To me, this professor is considered an expert on globalization, and as such the article should be kept. (Mind meal (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
  • True. I didn't check that. This may applies notability for the person and COI does not warrant a deletion. I tagged the article with {{coi2}}. This article needs editors to conform with WP:POLICY especially WP:COI. Dekisugi (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: From all indications, he will soon be a proper subject of an encyclopedia article, but, at present, he is not. Usually, people getting their advanced degrees from Harvard will go on to great things, and he's off to a good start, but not yet. There isn't enough biography to the biography. There is still "Random J. Professor" involved, although I agree that a book or two from now he'll be a major force. 13:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utgard Loki (talk • contribs)
• Delete Not yet notable, whatever may be in the future. Has written: 1 PhD thesis, 2 peer-reviewed articles, a chapter in one book, another chapter in a book he coedited ("Another World is Possible")--a book held in only 5 libraries listed in Worldcat, and what is presented as coauthorship of another book ("Unholy Trinity..."), but is really just authorship of one of the 18 articles. . Labeling him a "Theorist of Globalization and Development " is self-advertising puffery for someone who is merely a Lecturer. He's not Random J. Professor--he isnt't even a professor. DGG (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

he also seems to have edited a report published by a conference; Additional, he was present at a conference in Venezuela. As Chavez spoke at that conference, it was covered, and The Nation mentions in their long article on the conference what their reporter happens to have heard him say in a bar . paragraph 13 of 20 I dont think thats enough DGG (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment He teaches Social Studies 10 and a class for writers at Harvard.[1]. (Mind meal (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

His rank is nonetheless instructor, not even Assistant Professor--2 beginning courses. An instructor with 2 papers and 4 miscellaneous publications is not notable, even at Harvard. DGG (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• delete per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• delete per DGG. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I, and a number of other people, were asked to change our votes on this one, so I want to explain about notable academic careers: State One. A good beginning PhD will usually have 2 or 3 papers and some miscellaneous publications; s/he will get a job as a post-doc or instructor. Stage Two. If s/he publishes another few peer-reviewed papers or a book, s/he'll be appointed assistant professor at a good research university, to see if s/he will amount to anything. Stage Three: If the papers are it good journals good & widely cited, or there's another good book, this will be recognized by an appointment as an Associate professor with tenure. Stage Four: If excellent publication continues, this will be recognized by the profession, & expressed by his colleagues as appointment as Full Professor, journal editorship, & awards. This stage is notable, as having achieved wide recognition as a leader in the profession. Sometimes the recognition comes at Stage Three, if the work is really important--and there will be some evidence of it, such as major grants. In rare cases it can come at State Two or even Stage One, especially if it happens to attract popular interest. We actually had an instance recently of it being recognized at State Two. This guy is at stage One. DGG (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment No one was asked to change their vote. Additionally, that isn't any criteria I've ever seen in a guideline or policy, and certainly not at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The guy teaches at Harvard, he's been published in two academic journals, his works have been cited by various others, and he has written for a widely read publication (Znet magaine). I don't know about all your stages, but he's clearly notable. I'm not sure the votes have much to do with guidelines here on notability. They seem to be tinged with a hint of extraordinary bias I've not seen often. I don't like seeing false criteria created for what establishes notability, as I don't feel it is in the correct spirit of this community. Furthermore, his work has been cited in more than 15 academic books according to Google Books. I don't think editors are looking at the facts here. This isn't about personal opinions, it is about whether or not this individual meets notability requirements. What you've mentioned, in those stages, are not even requirements. (Mind meal (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

  I think what DGG mentions is correct and it follows with WP:PROF. That explains what significant is in the guideline. I work in a research area. I know who is notable and who is just barely notable. The number of publications (only 3 - after I checked him/her at ISI Web of Knowledge) is really small and it can be easily achieved by a PhD student. The number of citation is only 1 from the three publications there, which means his/her h-index is only 1! It's not notable at all for an academician. Dekisugi (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2008 (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.