Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amrita Jash

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. Killiondude (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amrita Jash

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

No notability. Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Strong Keep - It has been created under Women in Red category and reviewed by Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Let him decide - Mirandajoseph01 06:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Strong Keep Notable enough! - Usmankg 8:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

(comment based on incorrect assumption) Keep very clearly notable, perfectly decent article. I do wonder if the nomination was simply an error by User:आर्यावर्त who created this AfD via the one-touch Twinkle tool and only has 29 edits on this language Wikipedia. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not by mistake or error. User:Mirandajoseph01 is Creator of this article and User:Usmankg Created This Article on Hindi Wikipedia. I'm active wikipedian since 2013, Reviewer on Hindi Wikipedia. User:Usmankg Created some article and edit on hindi Wikipedia for promote IndraStra Global related. Amrita ji is also related this. Both article is nominated for deletion on hindi wiki also. Many Ref in Article but i think person is not noteble for encyclopedia. User promoted this only. I have request to reviewer and admin on enwiki please recheck. Thanks in advance.Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I did not see your good work on the Hindu Wikipedia, however I do think the policy there and the policy here are substantially different. Since the article is not blatantly promotional or obviously lacking in notability I did not think there was a strong case to delete it. I see that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndraStra Global has dealt with your concern of user promotion on the company, and it shows that the creator used irrelevant refernces, so I looked into this article in more detail. Really this is something you should have outlined yourself as nominator, your nomination was too short and did not include the key reason for deletion, something to remember for next time. The reference list looks good, but it isn't good. In fact all the references are either written by Amrita Jash herself or mere mentions only. ~~I will ping Frederickmwolf who commented based on my mistake.~~ I feel that taking this into account, the article likely fails WP:GNG, does not meet WP:Author, and was created by a conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editor. It should be deleted and I have changed my recommendation to reflect that. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explained in above details. The article looks good, but that is a clever cover. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Keep as per Ilyina Olya Yakovna. However, need to be expanded. The language skill acquired and demonstrated on some other wikipedia edition doesn't give the आर्यावर्त an outward bragging right. Secondly, what I see he is bringing his edit war from one language edition to this "English" edition. - Frederickmwolf 9:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Keep WP:NACADEMIC Criteria No: 3 - "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" i.e., Centre for Land Warfare Studies. This article qualifies on its own merits. - NaveenPatnekar 16:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Admit only a quick look, but appears to be a CV of a scholar that lists lots of non-peer-reviewed works which GS shows only a cumulative total citation count of 4. Other arguments above, like that a think tank satisfies PROF c3 are nonsense. Willing to change positions if sufficient RS, demonstration of scholarly impact, or any other proof of notability is forthcoming. Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: All the accounts that have voted Keep to date are operated by the same person. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mirandajoseph01.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the !votes made by the now blocked sock-puppet accounts. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete her work as a scholar is just not impactful enough to show that she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2018 (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.