Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukrita Paul Kumar

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. -- Cirt (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sukrita Paul Kumar[edit]

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

Non notable author.Fails notability.No major awards.No significant writings or books.Poorly referenced with references that just speak nothing of the subject's notability.It seems like a resume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poet009 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article presents no evidence that she passes WP:PROF for her academic work, and although I found a few hits for her name in major newspapers in Google news archive, the stories mentioned her too briefly to count for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 19:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I found her work in books and in some journals, along with some major newspaper. Googled results showed some of her notable work, in my view article can be retain.Bill william compton (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- then please insert those links and make the article suitable to be kept first.Otherwise the article cant be kept like this.--Diameter 15:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2011 (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.