Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amita Dhanda

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 keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amita Dhanda

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

Does not meet WP:Prof Uncletomwood (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep WP:GNG for the harassment case. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete The subject of the article doesn't meet WP:PROF. As far as the legal case is concerned, it's a single event which did not attract significant coverage by the Indian media. — Stringy Acid (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see numerous Google books sources talking about her work in detail.198.58.162.200 (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've written a bit more about her role at NALSAR and her activism based on RS. While I didn't add any in depth profiles of her in particular, there is a lot of discussion of her academic and activist work in reliable sources, and she seems to me to pass GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prominent law professor, plenty of sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable and passes GNG for sources. Multiple indicia of notability all add up.Montanabw^(talk) 02:41, 25 March 2017 (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.