Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akshata Krishnamurthy

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. asilvering (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshata Krishnamurthy

[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)

Page does not seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC, reads more like a self-promotional page, and focuses more on what the subject's projects have achieved rather than the subject themselves. Tammy0507 (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Spaceflight, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per half agreement with nom. Although we can rewrite the article, if NACADEMIC is not met, there is no point Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject could meet GNG and not PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it interesting when a user's first edit on Wikipedia is to nominate a page for deletion, as is the case here. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, it is rather strange. Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 19:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added Fortune India's Most Powerful Women List reference, and other interview references. Subject passes WP:GNG as there seem to be sufficient WP:RS. Shiv989 (talk)
Comment. I don't believe WP:PROF is met by citations; if one removes the heavily co-authored papers the highest cited on GS is 13. I am concerned that this nomination is brought by a new editor, and that a previous prod was made by another new editor. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: And the article was created by a new editor as well. Your point being...? Tammy0507 (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare for new editors to find the deletion processes early in their career here. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some of us are looking for a WP:CLEANSTART :) Tammy0507 (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - four of the sources are actually from one issue of Forbes India. Bearian (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2024 (UTCIpigott (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient coverage to meet general notability. Probably much more in the Indian press.--Ipigott (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. We don't usually put so much weight on the kind of listicle coverage as in Forbes. Apart from that, I see only press releases, the subject's own articles, and early career awards. Looks WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - might be worth noting coverage, mostly in Indian press - [1], [2],[3], [4], [5], [6], [7].. --Shiv989 (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the Economic Times article (which is, if you read it, admits to being basically a reproduction of the subject's Instagram page), and to a certain extent the News18 report, I would cast serious doubts on whether the cited sources are actually reliable sources. Tammy0507 (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I would like to remind editors what constitutes a reliable source and refer to WP:Reliable sources/News Organizations:

Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see Junk food news)

I do not see any source in this article and discussion that does not qualify as Human interest reporting. Tammy0507 (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 45 sources for a three-para article? Good grief. No, you're not getting a source analysis, but the sourcing is clearly (as has been noted extensively above) problematic. The awards are, not one of them, bluelinked. Fails WP:GNG - a lot of window dressing, clearly a talented individual, but we lack the substance required for notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article notes that the subject was the recipient of awards from the International Astronautical Federation the Zonta International Foundation, MIT, and NASA, which should satisfy the second condition of WP:ACADEMIC.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except none of those awards are significant, ie: bluelinked... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above that subject meets WP:GNG with articles in Indian press including Mint reference that notes subject is the first Indian citizen to operate Mars rover. The article could use some cleanup. Removed some non-relevant references in article and stated reasoning. Nnev66 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject meets WP:GNG and has notable coverage. I agree that the article needs cleanup. Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 19:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as noted above meets WP:GNG and also WP:ACADEMIC with Luigi G. Napolitano Award and publications. Referring to WP:ACADEMIC:

The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?

The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field and are determined by precedent and consensus. Also, this guideline sets the bar fairly low, which is natural; to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.

Other academic profiles for precedence: Anita Sengupta, Mark Adler, Farah Alibay, Bibhusita Das, Katherine Aaslestad --Shiv989 (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fortune's listing is enough for me, and there's a lot more than just that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, more on the basis of WP:GNG than WP:PROF. That sort of notability is not about whether she has the accomplishments to deserve the coverage she has been given; it is merely about what coverage there is and on how reliable and independent we take it to be. I place more credence in SSPI and in the Luigi G. Napolitano Award as being closer to the profession than, say, Fortune India, but regardless, I think there is enough coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterious Particle (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE[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.