Saman Amarasinghe: I don't see coverage that we'd use for PROF. Just a working educator, nothing notable here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Computing , California , Massachusetts ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , probably Speedy Keep .  Strong publication record with an h-factor of 74 and four pubs with over 1000 cites.  Two professional fellowships, so he qualifies under #C1 with the addition of #C3 to prove that peer recognition is not fake.  The page does need better citing, but not delete.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 00:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep WP:PROF category 3 -- fellowship in a highly prestigeous honorary society.  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I concur that he appears to pass WP:NPROF on multiple criteria.  Article needs work, but deletion is not clean-up .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 03:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is probably going to be kept on the basis of what I consider technicalities.  Association for Computing Machinery may be prestigious, and a fellowship in it may be relevant per NPROF #3, but we wouldn't be able to tell it from the article; there's a link, but it announces that there's 58 new fellows--so how special is it?  H-factor is of course always problematic, as are publications and cites.  Let's not forget that we're writing an encyclopedia here, and if there's nothing to write because everything is based on organizational websites announcing "fellowship" or databases showing a ranking, what are we doing?  That's right, resume writing, where all the content is derives from faculty pages or from the subject's own publications.  Drmies ( talk ) 19:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  ACM Fellow is an unambiguous pass of WP:PROF#C3 (potential COI: I am one too) and he has very strong citations, passing WP:PROF#C1 .  These are not technicalities.  One doesn't become a full professor in a tech field at MIT without significant accomplishments, and these indicators show that he has them.  The article needs cleanup but WP:DINC .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C3 , as argued above.  Deletion is not cleanup , and the first pass at cleaning up was very easy.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clear pass of WP:Prof .  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 01:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Comment .  This person fails to meet the notability criteria.  The citation rate of this person's work is not high enough.  This person does not even have any significant achievement or affiliation.  It is only right to delete this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.158.179.229 ( talk ) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This IP is not acting in good-faith, they are just WP:HOUNDING David.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per WP:NPROF #1 and #3 (ACM fellow).  The counter-arguments do not apply here, see NPROF.  -- hroest 07:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets NPROF for Fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery which is backed by a citation.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 16:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep .  Meets two NPROF criteria; one is sufficient.  If an article needs cleaning up, let's clean it up.  Qflib ( talk ) 20:04, 1 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep