Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sushmita Ruj

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sushmita Ruj[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)

Is this person really notable enough for an article? I see that she's now senior lecturer at UNSW https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/ms-sushmita-ruj But Google doesn't show up much else in independent sources, and the citations are thin. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not appear to meet WP:N. KSAWikipedian (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator, per WP:PROF#C1. The nominator's statement that "citations are thin" is false: the citation counts on her Google Scholar profile, 810, 457, 359, 355, ... (12 papers each with triple-digit citations) are easily enough for #C1. As for the previous delete comment, it appears to be applying the incorrect notability guideline; WP:PROF notability is independent of WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per David Eppstein, WP:PROF is what applies, not just WP:N. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Notability advises that A topic is presumed to merit an article if [it meets] the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; the pertinent such guideline for present purposes is Wikipedia:Notability (academics), of which the first criterion is met as argued above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The highly cited papers are also fairly highly coauthored, and it is a higher citation field, but I am still seeing a credible pass of WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:22, 11 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.