Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subhash Khanna (2nd nomination)

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Khanna

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

My comment in the last AfD discussion was "Subject is middle author on a couple of highly-cited, highly-coauthored papers. I'm not seeing a pass of WP:NPROF C1. The journal editorship is of a new journal [1], which does not pass WP:NPROF C8. Little other sign of notability, and WP:TNT is relevant." I am less certain of TNT, but the rest still holds. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and India. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check out some research papers authored by him, please, guide me if I am wrong in quoting it, thanks a lot. IQR (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. He has a GScholar profile (not the link on the page) which shows an h-factor of 27 and 2240 total. This is low, he is in a fairly well cited area. The page (and his homepage) has a self-promo tone. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like WP:PROMO. Fails to meet WP:NPROF. RangersRus (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom makes some great points around WP:NPROF failure and in summation notability just isn't there. We'd need to see more sources and especially those of an independent and reliable nature for this to pass as notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2025 (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.