Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chellapilla Venkata Rao

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. Sandstein 09:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chellapilla Venkata Rao[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Okay, so either we have guidelines or we don't. Excellent article about someone who simply doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. The vast majority of the current sourcing is non-independent. The rest is simply mentions. There is not a single in-depth source about this scholar. Not one. Nothing in the article suggests that he passes WP:NSCHOLAR, and the highest citation count they have (using C. Venkata Rao) as the sole author is 81. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he wrote a monograph on a plant family. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Casliber and extended explanations at the nominators talk page regarding whether Scholar and related metrics is actually appropriate to utilise for such an item JarrahTree 13:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Casliber and extended discussions on the articles talk page [[1]]. In most of the articles I have managed to find, he appears as C.V.Rao. Hence his artcles and citations of them are extremely difficult to find. Searching Rao, C.Rao for C.V. Rao, brings up many wrong hits as there are many Rao's and many C. Raos (somewhat fewer C.V. Raos). Searches on Venkata Rao fail to bring up most of his work, let alone those citing it. However the combination "embryology"+"Malvaceae"+"Rao" in a search on Google on June 3, 2018 produced some 473 results, most of which (> 90% on the first two pages of the results) clearly referenced Chellapilla Venkata Rao or were references to his work. Further, one reviewer (a specialist in Proteaceae) of the monograph on Proteaceae referred to him as "the leading researcher on this family" (Proteaceae), in his review. The phylogenetic website http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/, a resource used by those interested in doing plant phylogenetic research, currently continues to reference his work on anatomy and embryology of the plant families Proteaceae, Malvaceae (which includes his work on Sterculiaceae, Bombacaceae and Malvaceae). MargaretRDonald (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ariconte (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ariconte (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is clear he didn't employ a PR team and was not an attention seeker. Also clear he made major contributions - enough in my view. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolute no brainer His abbreviation for botanical citations is Venk.Rao means he was responsible the publication and naming of new botanic species, that alone meets WP:NSCHOLAR. Add to that the 15 publications listed in the article he meets WP:GNG, his scientific/botanical work meets WP:NSCHOLAR on that as well. Gnan garra 05:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important Botanist who meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:37, 4 June 2018 (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.