Deletion of Gerhard Kramm

Comment: Kramm's citation record is not strong enough to pass  criterion 1, and theoretical meteorology is very much a mainstream discipline, so the get-out-clause claim above is spurious. For an associate professor to be considered notable we would need extraordinary evidence to claim that Kramm has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline in contradiction to his employer's failure to grant a full professorship
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: The h-index is promising but not quite enough to convince me of a pass of #C1 (searching Google scholar for ozone formation or ozone destruction reveals many better-cited papers on the subject than his top paper), and in any case is not enough by itself to write an article. And despite what seems to have been a lot of effort over the course of the article, the sources are still weak and non-neutral, mostly coming either from Kramm himself or from the Cato Institute
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: A number of the commentators here seem to be acquainted with one another from previous talk regarding Kramm and perhaps other articles related to climate change and, furthermore, there seems to be a thinly veiled theme of taking sides for or against this article based on Kramm's stance on global warming. ''This stance is irrelevant to his notability.'' We are only debating whether he satisfies ''any'' of the standard notability guidelines, although it's pretty clear that  is the most appropriate. There also seems to be confusion on sources. Specifically, it has been argued that unless there are ''biographical'' sources, he is ''not'' notable. This is patent nonsense and there is an enormous body of precedent that contradicts this assertion. I've already demonstrated above that he has a body of scholarship that has ''conservatively'' (per WoS) been cited >350 times, which satisfies  #1. Wikilawyering counterclaims that these sources provide no information for the article are false. At the very barest minimum, his published papers (which are, by definition, ) can be combed for places of employment, research interests, accomplishments, etc. and the article can be a stub with this information. In this case, however, there would also seem to be additional biographical info in the material that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:RS)

Comment: A few matters should be clarified. First, this debate is strictly about whether to keep the article based on the subject's notability, not whether there's enough material supported by ''biographical'' sources to write an article. If there aren't many of latter, the article can always be stubbed using minimal information from published papers, like history of employment and areas of expertise. Second, there's no precedent of limiting notability to one kind of ranking, as implied above using http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html this list. The overwhelming majority of academics pass on  #1 and there are many accepted ways of demonstrating this, including h-index, book holdings, total number of citations to published work, etc. Here, WoS shows that the subject has an h-index of 12, which is in our historically "borderline" region of 10-15, but the citation list is more telling, e.g. 45, 42, 36, 34, 32, ... (total >350) and Kramm is the first or corresponding author on most of the well-cited papers. As one would expect, these citation numbers are somewhat higher on GS
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: The only source I found was the Anchorage Daily News December 10, 2006 article note in the nom, which was reprinted word for word in an Anchorage Daily News July 18, 2010 article (haven't seen that before). The biography topic doesn't meet . To those favoring skepticism about global warming is it more important to have an article on what Kramm says about his skepticism about global warming or an article about his life events? The Kramm topic doesn't qualify as a biography and even Kramm would agree that his life events are less important than his writing and messages on global warming. Maybe instead of a biography, try writing a Writings of Gerhard Kramm article. I think you will get much further in the Wikipedia process
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)