Deletion of Sardha Wijesoma (3rd nomination)

Comment: Wait a tic, the subject meets the criteria at ? If that's the case, this is an obvious keep. But aside from that, the subject has hundreds of citations, and has authored works that garnered hundreds more. At first glance, this seems like a clear keep. Note also that having had an AFD closed as no consensus is not itself a criteria for deletion, especially since the AfD was closed after a month and multiple relists, at which point there were two keep !votes and 0 deletes apart from your own (since you nominated the article at both previous AFDs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: A couple of moderately well-cited papers, but not enough to convince me of  in a high-citation field, and I don't see any other evidence of notability. (Also, to me "fuzzy" in a title, such as the subject's second-most-cited work, is a  of low-quality research, so I'd want to see particularly clear evidence of impact, which does not seem to exist in this case
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:REDFLAG)

Comment: I do not follow the nom.  The nom states that the article subject does meet , followed by the contradiction 'lacks . . establishing notability' so why did they nominate ?  Until the nom is not self contradictory SNOW keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)