Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shikha Shah

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. Consensus is that winning the Women Transforming India award isn't sufficient to meet GNG -- RoySmith (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shikha Shah[edit]

[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)

Claim of notability but appears to have no notable achievements having just set up a minor business in the last year or so. Fails GNG. Too soon for an article. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:TOOSOON and smacks of a vanity/promotional article. W C M_email 01:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can’t find sources to support this. Mccapra (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as she does not meet WP:GNG at this time. There is a slight possibility that the article could be redirected to Women Transforming India but that article is IMO on the TOOSOON side as well. MarnetteD|Talk 00:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as recipient of the UN- and Indian government-sponsored Women Transforming India, which recognises only 12-15 women per year. PamD 08:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD. She's also one of two recipients of a new Gujarat University award. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD and Tagishsimon: Can you please establish how these fulfill the conditions under WP:BIO, WP:GNG or any other notability guideline? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The very first additional criteria: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon: Thanks for clarifying. It's a bit of a stretch to claim that the Women Transforming India award and the Gujarat University award could be categorized as "well-known" or "significant". That claim could be dispelled simply by looking at the very limited coverage the awards themselves have received. I hope you will agree that just because an award or honour is notable enough to have an article on ENWP, it does not automatically qualify them as being "well-known" or "significant". — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How good are your Indian language skills, Sir Nic? What actual research have you done to make such a claim. I'm going with the good-faith understanding that the award was sufficiently important that people on the ground in India organised an editathon around it. I don't think it is for us to say, from, presumably, several thousand miles away, that the award did not achieve considerable press in India. There is a thread on the WiR talk page should you want to take this up with a local editor - they'd be better informed than me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon: Did you just assume my location? :) It should suffice to say that I have a very good understanding of the subject. More importantly, notability of the subject has yet to be established in consonance with this project's official policy. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is your view, Sir Nic. Mine is that the multiple references on her article support "consonance with this project's official policy" so far as coverage is concerned, and that the award supports the additional criteria. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be on these points. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly, fails WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject clearly fails WP:NPERSON. -The Gnome (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while exclusivity is important in an award, I don't think that sole criteria is enough to make it a significant, or well-known award. Absent that, doesn't meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:47, 22 March 2019 (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.