Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Kathuria

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Kathuria

[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)

certainly coi and prob autobio. Essentially a post-doc, "Not Yet Notable". Gooogle Scholar shows only one highly cited paper, but it's a large group effort where she is one of 43 authors. The senior person in her group seems to be Rakesh Karmacharya, who might be notable Her awards are junior awards or fellowships. The article is furthermore unacceptable under MEDRS because it makes therapeutic claims for specific diseases sourced to her own work. DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another person using Wiki in what looks like an effort to boost their brand. Nothing notable found. Low citation index. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly doesn't meet WP:NPROF. WP:TOOSOON at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not at least yet meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Certainly reads like a vanity page whether or not it is an auto bio or highly COI - or even UPE. I note also that the article with its raft of sources was dumped into mainspace in just one edit , in fairly clean format (very unusual for a new user) by the creator who had first just done the mandatory edits to become autoconfirmed. Many of the sources are unreliable or simply inadmissible. Does not meet WP:NPROF in any ways. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NACADEMIC, definitely too soon. Editing pattern of enough very minor edits to become auto confirmed followed by article creation, as well as image uploaded as own work and where it is used elsewhere, strongly suggests WP:COI if not WP:UPE. Melcous (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON and, I suspect, a WP:COI of some sort.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2022 (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.