Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saman Halgamuge


 * 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure)  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Saman Halgamuge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not pass WP:GNG, not significant. The sources are not independent of the subject. RileyBugzYell at me &#124; Edits 22:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable University professor- fails WP:NACADEMIC. Dan arndt (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment. Sometimes, nominators who have made mistaken AfD nominations, withdraw them to save the time of other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof with GS h-index of 33. Nominator, who has been editing for two months, is advised to study WP:Prof and carry out WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC).
 * (edit conflict) Keep. According to Google Scholar an author of several very highly cited papers, high citations overall and high GS h-index (33) – all amounting to a very convincing case for passing WP:PROF. some friendly advice: be especially diligent with step 3 of WP:BEFORE when nominating articles in topics you're not overly familiar with, because these days there's almost always an applicable subject-specific notability guideline in addition to the GNG. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes professor criteria. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * SNOW Keep as the GoogleScholar citations in IEEE is quite enough, no other serious concerns here. SwisterTwister   talk  04:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.