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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nandu Jayakumar (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)

Notability concerns. None of the 18 references are secondary sources; the interview at KDNuggets is the only one that's independent of him. His patents and press releases about speaking at conferences do nothing to establish notability power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing notability guides at WP:ANYBIO. I find absolutely zero good references. Ifnord (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Subject is not notable at all. Fails WP:GNG. Skirts⁸⁹ 20:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is also a draft at Draft:Nandu Jayakumar. This discussion should also address the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article but Keep the draft. The subject is not notable, but the draft does not need deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I know I'm responsible for putting this article up, so I thought I'd add some thoughts here. Person was jointly responsible for implementing Yahoo! Search capabilities. According to Wikipedia, Yahoo! Search is 2nd most used search engine. Without this person's contributions to their algorithm and tracking abilities, their search engine would not be where it is today. I also agree that a lot of the references seem not to be secondary sources, but as is the case on many occasions where you have a very tight, specialised field of scientific or academic nature, you will normally only find self-authored academic papers, or conference keynotes and presentations often done by the authors themselves. If the article is kept, then it will be significantly improved, especially the language as it does need to be tidied up a bit. Some of the Stanford articles seem independent upon 2nd look. Busy adding secondary sources. Equine-man (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are hundreds, if not thousands of people jointly responsible for implementing Yahoo! Search capabilities. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I get where you are coming from. Perhaps I should have said "significant contribution" instead. And another 3rd party source has been added already, and more are being sourced as well. Equine-man (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - User:Equine-man - Can the article be written to quote independent reliable sources to describe his role in implementation of the Yahoo search engine? If the article can speak for itself in that way with independent reliable sources, the subject is notable. If not, maybe the subject is not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added another KDNuggets link. Also there are multi-year Strata Data Conference proceedings already cited acclaiming subjects involvement with Yahoo. All peer-reviewed congress proceedings. Relevant in an narrow academic field? It's not really a topic found published in more mainstream publications. Equine-man (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Does the proponent have a connection with the subject of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, never met or know him. No COI involved.

• Comment I knew I had seen this somewhere before, which I was basing my reasoning on: WP:NACADEMIC

Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences. Also, in sciences, most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings Equine-man (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable per any applicable policies/guidelines. A look at the creator's other new articles also make me suspect undisclosed paid editing. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As already commented above, no COI involved. I find articles, sometimes on foreign wiki’s and translate them for English wiki. Or I find things in subjects I am interested in, and check if the subject is on wiki if I think they should be on wiki. Equine-man (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2019 (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.