Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M C Puri

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 of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 06:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bio article for someone who is notably only for being killed, and only from the article pointing out his death. Maury 15:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article title should at least contain his full name instead of initials. Much too unnotable. He scores seven times less than Brian Peppers on Google hits. --★Ukdragon37★^talk 18:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Wikipedia naming conventions, the article title should be the name he is best known by, whether this is "M C Puri" or "Munish Chandra Puri". For instance, Alan Alexander Milne is simply a redirect to the much better known A. A. Milne. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable for being in the news, and potentially for academic work yet to be added. Probably redirect to full name unless this is his usual byline. --Hansnesse 19:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Describes a current event. In news [1]. deeptrivia (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Maybe if this Rfa was presented before his death I'd have voted Speedy. I've never heard about this Professor (maybe only a couple of thousands around the world have had) and it's a pleasure that I got to know about him via Wikipedia! This Afd led me to know that "Manmohan Singh (PM of India) has written a letter to the wife of Puri who was killed in a suspected terrorist attack. Worthy! Cheers -- Szvest 01:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]
• Keep, it's verifiable, and notability is not a prerequisite for Wikipedia articles, despite common belief Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 07:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If not much can be added about his academic work, it could be merged and redirected to 2005 Indian Institute of Science shooting. --Pamri • Talk 14:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A Professor of mathematics, current or retired, at any Indian Institute of Technology would be generally a notable person, and killing of Puri has certainly made him certainly notable. He is more notable than several computer-game characters. --Bhadani 14:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are hundreds of thousands of professors in the world, and to claim that they are all notable is presumptuous. I cannot find a paper of his that is newer than 1995 (and only two at that), he does not seem to have won any significant awards, and therefore he is not notable. All the Google hits are news articles based on his death. Notability is indeed a factor (WP:Notability IIRC), and since his funeral is over and done with, it is really no longer a current event. There also appears to be no more info available than what's already here, even from news outlets. MSJapan 22:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The Indian Institute of Technology are no ordinary universities. The IIS is one of the most famous institutes in India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with and redirect to 2005 Indian Institute of Science shooting. He was not notable enough before he was killed. utcursch | talk 08:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Retired professor; retired before 2000 AD; not surprising that his last paper is in 1995. Also, he pre-dates internet era, hence, hits would be limited. Given the fact that he was professor emeritus at IIT Delhi, a notable position at a notable institution, I'd vote keep for now. It can be merged with the IISc page even later. --Gurubrahma 14:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In general, "emeritus" is a term applied to almost any former titled professor (as it's based on more than a PhD) who has retired and is still alive. That in and of itself is not notable. That is like saying a professor emeritus at a community college is notable - emeritus does not make notability. He doesn't really predate the Internet, and there should be a list of publications available someplace or some citations if his work was really that groundbreaking - that's the nature of scholarly research - and there isn't. I mean, Hawking oredated the Net, and he is heavily cited everywhere. MSJapan 03:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it was a current event.--Kevin Hanse (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – IIT prof on visit to an IIS seminar. I'm sure he must have published something given this background. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge - There is nothing here information-wise that isn't already covered in the shootings article already mentioned, and if there's no more biographical info than what is currently available, this will never be more than a non-notable stub. Academic position is not notable; there are plenty of professors (emeritus or otherwise) in plenty of fields who have published seminal works any many papers on their topics in their countries, and almost none have Wikipedia articles on them, nor are they deserving of such, as those pages amount to nothing but vanity pages. I can think of three presidents of the Association for Asian Studies who do not have articles on them, for example, and this is really the same type of situation. MSJapan 07:41, 5 January 2006 (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.