Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Mehta

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 19:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Mehta

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the citations used here are primary sources which don't establish her notability that why she deserves Wikipedia page. Brihaspati (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As you said, every single citation is to a primary source except for 1. A quick Google search for her shows that there are no other sources except for those from universities, and practically all of them are from the same time except for one, which doesn't meet WP:SUSTAINED. There is no significant coverage, so it fails WP:GNG as well. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^{Talk to me}∕_{What have I been doing} 15:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is evident: 2nd Indian woman to receive a Rhodes scholarship, first Indian Radcliff fellow, fellow of the APS ... easy pass of WP:ACADEMIC. UCS, please. AfD is not cleanup. --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing about her that has been stated so far actually meets notability for academics. She is an early career academic who has not met any of our actual inclusion criteria for academics as of yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Johnpacklambert: How have you determined that Mehta is "an early career academic"? She completed her DPhil in 1986. Her 2007 fellow's citation at the APS reads: For being a pioneer in granular physics, and contributions to many and diverse areas in complex systems and nonlinear dynamics; for her efforts to help 'invisible scientists' in emergent countries become globally visible, with special reference to women in international science. NB ACADEMIC#3; this is an easy pass. Are you sure you have the right person? --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:Academic per Goldsztajn's findings. IphisOfCrete (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2020 (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.