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. Courcelles 00:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Gangal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Academic that appears not to have been the subject of, or received coverage in, any second-party sources. I can certainly find no source that attests to the kind of influence required by the notability guideline for academics. Scopus lists 18 journal articles authored by Gangal, a total of 178 citations, and an h-index of 5 (which certainly doesn't indicate notability).   -- Lear's Fool 05:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --   -- Lear's Fool 05:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --   -- Lear's Fool 05:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Citability and h-index are fairly low and there is nothing else in the record to indicate passing WP:PROF (prestigious awards, journal editorships, elected fellowships, etc). Nsk92 (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A "pioneer in calculus"?? While I agree per nom with the deletion, I certainly doubt the content of the article and the made claims. DrPhosphorus (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article doesn't claim that the subject is a pioneer in calculus, but in calculus on fractals. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete h-index of 5 seems low. Nergaal (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cites do not seem to justify the bold claims in the article. Maybe too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per notability concerns, above. Ray^Talk 22:30, 20 December 2010 (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.