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 no consensus. Two relists failed to generate a clear consensus. Defaulting to Keep, w/o prejudice to a future renomination. (non-admin closure) Puzzledvegetable ^{Is it teatime already?} 16:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Heremba Bailung

Heremba Bailung (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Procedural nomination, came across at NPP and I am unsure if this person meets WP:NPROF. According to Google Scholar, [1] their highest cited papers are 569 (as second author) and 430 (as first author); they work in plasma physics. b uidh e 05:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. b uidh e 05:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 05:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep, this seems like a huge number of citations in physics! It seems there is a fundamental discovery, the discovery of peregrine solitons in plasma and he is listed as academic director of this institute, Institute of Advanced Study in Science and Technology http://iasst.gov.in/ PainProf ( talk) 04:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  PainProf, The organization appears to be non notable so I nominated it for deletion as well. b uidh e 04:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  Comment Not sure see https://dst.gov.in/autonomous-st-institution. I think this basically may rest on whether that's a notable institute then, Physics its quite hard to tell with because the citations are never as high as biology, his papers continue to be popular which suggests its an important topic, although I'm guessing you will never find much popular science coverage of that. PainProf ( talk) 04:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep Over 2000 citations seems like a lot to me, and they seem to be in a senior post, but I'm not sure if it counts as a "major institution". Kj cheetham ( talk) 15:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. He has only two highly cited publications on Google Scholar, but both are with significantly more well-cited coauthors (PK Shukla and Y Nakamura) and when I checked who is citing the top one, among the first 20 citations Google showed me, fully half were by one or the other of those two coauthors. To me that significantly weakens the evidence of academic impact, and without that we don't have much. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete per David Eppstein unless evidence of impact is forthcoming. b uidh e 04:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Striking 2nd !vote by Buidhe, your nom is your !vote. thanks. Britishfinance ( talk) 19:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Britishfinance, it is not a "second vote" as I clearly stated in the nom that I wasn't sure if it was notable and it was a procedural nomination. Since I have formed an opinion it is completly appropriate to state it. Please do not strike such !votes without reading the nomination first. b uidh e 19:56, 28 June 2020 (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.