Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roshni Koli

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roshni Koli

[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)

Doesn't appear to meet the relevant notability guidelines. None of the criteria in the guideline for academics are satisfied, and I'm not seeing enough independent (i.e. not associated with her employers) sources to meet WP:GNG/WP:BIO. The best I can find is interviews in local press, but these appear to be more about local news issues than Koli herself. At this point, it's probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC or another notability criterion. Being quoted in a local news source based on one's expertise does not provide a sufficient basis on which to base a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does seem like WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had been planning on nominating this myself. The cited sources fall well short of independence for satisfying GNG. MarginalCost (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NACADEMIC. Basically just a watered down CV. --Kbabej (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep if possible to find more citations, some are blocked from access in EU, but accept it may be a case ofWP:TOOSOON
Delete. She has 3 articles and 4 citations... Much, much too soon. JoelleJay (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG. Too few news sources. Peter303x (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apologies to disrupt what seems to be a clear delete. I am noticing some published material with name RL Koli at Google Scholar [1] which seems to be the same person. There are number of papers published as first and second author. She is also mentioned at a paper published at NIH [2]. I am aware that WP:Aacdemic will require her to have multiple highly cited sources. We are sort of seeing multiple papers at the moment but are not able to know if they are highly cited or not. But it is worth looking at it from that point of view. Also, I don't think WP:GNG would be required to check anymore if we are going for WP:Academic. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd already looked at Google Scholar, and the number of citations seems far far too low. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh great then. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2021 (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.