Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umesh Waghmare

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. JohnCD (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umesh Waghmare

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

Article does not fit according to WP:GNG. --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 10:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the article seems to be the person himself, User:Vaghmare aus and the contributions also depict that only. --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 11:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS gives an h-index of 20. Even with many co-authors this is respectable enough for condensed matter physics. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk).
Comment. Qwfp has done a better search than I did and increases the case for keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I get an h-index of 28 from a GScholar search for "UV Waghmare", with the top counts of 1792, 435, 369, 247 all being for papers from the last 10 years. Plus the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology, the highest award for science in India (the 2nd most populous country in the world) surely meets WP:PROF#C2. Questions of WP:Conflict of interest or WP:Neutral point of view can be dealt with without deletion as the article isn't in that bad a state, certainly not a case for WP:TNT. Qwfp (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:COI is a problem, but WP:PROF is clearly satisfied. -- 202.124.72.217 (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2012 (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.