Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rama Akkiraju


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Rama Akkiraju

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I cannot find any reliable in-depth WP:RS for him, which makes his notability very clearly questionable. Fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - reliable sources are provided, have received significant coverage, simply googling her name leads to lots of coverage of her work, definitely pass WP:BASIC WP:BIO--Wakowako (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see significant coverage of reliable sources already here in the article, passes WP:GNG. Jooojay (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - nominator didn't even read the article. She is a female academic that clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC. PK650 (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above comments. Pages with sources even close to this shouldn't be nominated. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject clearly passes criterion 2 of WP:ANYBIO by any number of different reliable sources mentioned here and on the page, and easily found by searching. Unless I'm misunderstanding this person's job and educational background, which I believe is as an engineer and a manager of engineers, then I actually don't agree that WP:PROF should be expected to apply to them -- and this only makes it much more notable that the subject also clearly passes Criterion 1 of academic notability. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * She is a researcher at a research laboratory, which makes a reasonable fit for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually did misunderstand what an IBM Fellow is. Thanks - Astrophobe (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. IBM Fellow is I think the equivalent of WP:PROF or maybe #C5 (although not technically the same as either) and I think her citation record is good enough for #C1 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. If I have counted correctly she gets a GS h-index of 32, which is enough to pass WP:Prof in this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC).
 * Keep. Notable both as an academic and as a contributor to IBM developments.--Ipigott (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as clearly notable from sources, and remind nominator to read an article carefully before nominating for deletion - to refer to her as "him" shows that they are nominating too fast and carelessly. Pam  D  11:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.