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. Wizardman 01:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjiva Weerawarana

[edit]

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

No-notable software developer. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. ^Bongo_matic 15:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scopus shows 26 publications, with citation counts 311, 179, etc. Anyone with two publications with that much impact is notable in his field--especially since conference papers are mostly not included in Scopus , but are major information resource in the area. The rest of his career is compatible with the objective count. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS gives top cites of 1522, 759, 730, 445, 335, 306 etc. with an h index of around 30. Even allowing for the subject's activities being in an IT based area and therefore likely to have high web exposure, the GS and Scopus cites above are far above average. This appears to be a careless and time-wasting nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

comment: normally, the GS counts are about 2x the Scopus counts. That they are 4X higher in this case is very reasonable, because of the subject matter; GS includes many more of the non peer-reviewed journal sources that Scopus (or WOS) limits itself to . DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(@Xx) This appears to be a careless and time-wasting comment, inasmuch as citation counts are irrelevant to the question whether this person has been the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable works whose sources are independent of him from which an actual encyclopedia article can be constructed. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I would add that the article doesn't assert notability strongly enough (which can and should be fixed). Bfigura ^(talk) 02:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's up with this rash of "asserting notability" piffle I've been seeing crop up at afd lately? "Asserting notability" is a csd criterion. "Asserting notability" is neither necessary nor sufficient for an article to pass afd. Sources are. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is a guideline for inclusion in general. Asserting importance or significance (a lower standard) ((Db-a7)) is related to speedy deletion. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry 160.39., I guess I didn't make my point clear enough. I think the article's subject is notable. However, as written, the article doesn't really demonstrate importance or significance. This should be fixed. Why? Because otherwise someone is liable to come across it in the future and go "This doesn't assert notability, let's send it to AfD/CSD/Prod" and thereby waste everyone's time. This could be avoided by improving the article. That's all. --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), based on citation count. Has a high h-index of 31.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2009 (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.