Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hosahalli Ramaswamy

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Hosahalli Ramaswamy}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Hosahalli Ramaswamy}})

Promotional creation. Fails GNG. Wareon (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not qualified to judge the publications of food scientists, but his [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YHHNXPkAAAAJ&hl=en Google Scholar profile] shows an h-index of 69, which suggests a WP:NPROF#C1 pass. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Regardless of notability this seems to be part of a pattern of promotional editing across multiple articles. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anubhav Pratap Singh and the history of both articles (also Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology, created and speedily deleted around the same time as the original creation of this article by the same editor, and Journal of Food Engineering, of the same vintage and dubious notability). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. These are the metrics for Ramaswamy in comparison to the first 100 coauthors of his top-cited papers: total cites (R: 11,067, med: 478, avg: 1479), citing docs: (R: 7,813, med: 429, avg: 1107), total pubs (R: 470, med: 18, avg: 57), h-index (R: 53, med: 11, avg: 15). Clearly meets NPROF C1 for impact within his subfield. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YHHNXPkAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao Google scholar] has him at 17k citations and an h-index of 69, passes C1 of PROF.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per above discussion re: WP:PROF. I too am concerned about the puffery, but it's not anywhere near the level I've suggested for WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.