Rajnish S Kumar: We can also see the subject's active participation from edit history.  iMahesh ( talk ) 08:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  iMahesh ( talk ) 08:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Not my area but the GS profile [27] looks very healthy, top citations 590,535,507,428,373 and around 25 papers >100 citations.  The edit from what appears to be the subject appears reasonable (clarifying the h -index is sourced from GS).  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 00:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd also ask what evidence is provided for the accusation of paid editing.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 00:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Conflict of Interest The creator of this article, had already received a Conflict of Interest warning from Curb Safe Charmer on 27 April 2020 while working on Praveen Linga Both Praveen Linga and Rajnish S Kumar are associated with the same university, which raises questions about the impartiality and neutrality of the content created by this user, especially when it comes to individuals connected to that university.  Suspicious Timing The article Rajnish S Kumar was created at 09:35, 18 September 2023, and within just a few hours, Mr. Rajnish S Kumar himself created an account on Wikipedia and made edits to his own article at 12:14, 18 September 2023.  Such rapid and coordinated editing activities give rise to concerns about Paid Editing and conflicts of interest.  -- iMahesh ( talk ) 01:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article on Linga is pretty promotional, though the subject is clearly notable.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] change of vote Delete .  Thankfully, the kamikaze account responsible for this text, like most of their ilk, works clumsily, thus making editors' life easier.  In short, subject fails WP:GNG and both.  To wit: We have a link to Business Insider that grandly purports to show  our subject as someone "featured in the world’s ‘highly-cited’ researchers list," while in fact that's  Mechanical Engineer Avinash Kumar Agarwal; the link to the University of British Columbia ostensibly supporting the same claim pops up a 404 ; an uninteresting Google list of Kumar's publications; one more effort to establish Kumar as a "highly cited researcher" gifts us with a totally irrelevant text , mentioning out subject precisely zero times; then, a single  mention in an Elsevier catalog about Kumar being on some panel among many about Chemistry awards to young people; finally, a fitting finale as well, we get the news about Kumar being feted with the NASI-Scopus Young Scientist Award for 2016, but, unfortunately, this too turns out to be about bioengineer Sachin Kumar.  There is nothing there except for time wasting.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 15:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing suggestion to Keep .  The above forensics are correct but they're trumped by one single award bequeathed to out subject that allows him to pass WP:NPROF #2, the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology , as pointed out by Curb Safe Charmer .  The article's still a rotten contraption what with all the self-penned adulatory verbiage and the lame-o sourcing but notability prevails.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 09:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per criteria #1 and #2 of WP:NPROF .  Highly cited, and won the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology , a notable award.  Article needs further cleanup (I made a start).  Curb Safe Charmer ( talk ) 17:02, 22 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep