Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinjini Kundu

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. Pretty sound consensus. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shinjini Kundu

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

looks like the case of WP:TOOEARLY. Can't find notability outside local Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very few GS citations in a topic which attracts very many WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Her awards and press clearly satisfy GNG. Keilana (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No sources sufficiently in-depth to satisfy WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: Sources have adequate depth for someone in a ground-breaking field and performing unique research. Multiple third-party coverage independent of subject. Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence yet in the citation databases of substantial achievement in in a ground-breaking field and performing unique research. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep added another source, meets WP:GNG. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regarding the local notability concern (presumably Pittsburgh), I think the national Indian media sources linked in the article demonstrate broader prominence. Also, I'd say the televised national academic achievement award meets option (2) under WP:ACADEMIC - a WP:GNG alternative. User:Umdunno 02:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Academic#C2 refers to The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. This is taken to be of the prestige of a Nobel Prize or a Fields Medal. What award are you referring to here? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, I didn't realize that's confined to awards of that sort. I was only thinking that the Times Now award has at least the prominence of, say, Forbes 30 Under 30 for Science (which I would consider a highly prestigious honor /for/ young academics, but maybe that would be a WP:ANYBIO (1) kind of notability). User:Umdunno 23:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (although I hate myself for saying it) This looks like a young, fairly average academic who has been elevated to the nirvana of media darling cause of some stuff she said. Sadly, that makes her notable and therefore worthy of a WP article. However, the article needs a cleanup. There's no point listing her publications. They aren't particularly notable and don't say anything about her so they aren't acting as supporting refs, just a CV. I'm sure she has a departmental webpage for this sort of stuff. Famous _dog (c) 08:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under what policy do you advocate keep? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep The sources show she passes GNG. I don't care "why" she was noteworthy, the fact is she was and was covered. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines make it clear that it is the quality of the sources that contributes to notability, not the quantity. Therefore editors should care why people are noteworthy. Just being covered does not necessarily confer notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - prizes and media coverage. Hildabast (talk) 23:35, 19 August 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.