Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishna AchutaRao

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. Cirt (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna AchutaRao[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use a bit of initiative and check Krishna Achuta Rao? Opbeith (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's not his name. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not require editors to pretend that reality does not exist. Opbeith (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? Joe Chill (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can't have tried very hard because GS gives cites of 172, 155, 65,34, 10.. h index = 5. Still not enough for WP:Prof #1 though. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I guess you didn't try very hard either. Joe Chill (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Delete. We don't need to try really hard, because he conveniently lists all his publications. A claim to notability would probably be based on his top three papers "Penetration of human-induced warming into the world's oceans" (172 cites, but he was not lead author), "An overview of results from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project" (155 cites, but he was not lead author), and "ENSO simulation in coupled ocean-atmosphere models: are the current models better?" (65 cites), if these have received news coverage. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which they don't seem to have. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the lack of significant coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 06:35, 21 February 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.