Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj khanna

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. Hut 8.5 20:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raj khanna[edit]

Non-notable person. I originally put a speedy deletion tag on it, but in looking at the edit history, I saw that there had already been a PROD tag put on it, which was removed by the original editor, who is presumably a relative of the person in question. Corvus cornix_talk 21:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable professor. A Google search turns up mostly search results for Hans Raj Khanna, a notable supreme court judge in India, so redirect this page and Raj Khanna to Hans Raj Khanna. Cunard (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:PROF notability and secondarily not-a-memorial/obit website. DMacks (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Google scholar turns up one paper with 98 citations (Studies of proton-irradiated cometary-type ice mixtures) and (under "R. K. Khanna", mixed up with several other similarly-named researchers) several more with double-digit citations (e.g. Origin of the 6.85 μm band near young stellar objects: The ammonium ion (NH4+) revisited). I don't think it's enough. I couldn't find any evidence that he'd held a named chair, and his faculty web page shows no awards or other indicators; absence of these is not a reason to delete by themselves, but it also means that we can't find a different way for him to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, per David Eppstein. I looked through WoS and there are a few older papers by the subject (at least probably by him) from 1980s that do not show in GoogleScholar with citation rates in the 40-50 range. But overall not enough to pass WP:PROF on the basis of citability of his work and no other info in the article to indicate passing WP:PROF on other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2008 (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.