Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enakshi Ray Mitra

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. ST47 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enakshi Ray Mitra

[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)

Provided sources do not meet WP:GNG, as they comprise a single review of a book by the subject and some informational pages about organizations that the subject is affiliated with. I was unable to find anything more substantial searching for her name in English online. A Google Scholar search would seem to indicate that her publications have not been sufficiently cited to meet WP:NACADEMIC. The citation provided for the claim that the subject is affiliated with Indian Institute of Advanced Study does not mention the subject, and she is not listed on their list of fellows. It's further unclear whether being a fellow of the organization would establish notability. While Scholar is not the be-all end-all of measurements of academic impact (especially for the humanities), based on this University of Delhi website, it appears that the subject is an assistant professor, and her publications are all relatively recent––it may simply be WP:TOOSOON. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article clearly needs some work, but GNG and NPROF is met, at least minimally. But needs the WP:HEY squad to improve quality quite a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 19:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, could you clarify what exactly leads you to believe that GNG and/or NPROF are met? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article doesn't meet the notability guidelines as it lacks significant coverage in multiple independent resources. Edwige9 (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This academic do not meet NPROF, she is a fellow of a research institute, that is not the same as being a fellow of a national academy. I also can not find press coverage, I did a google search and there is only routine coverage by the institutions she worked at. Viztor (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enakshi Ray Mitra page has been revised, the objection raised that the subject was not the member of the said institute is untenable. In the recent edit, User:Parchahimanshuphil has edited and provided the reference for that point. Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, Shimla is one of the most prestigious research institutes for the humanities in India. This shows that the subject is one of the reputed philosophers among the philosophers' community of India. All the objections raised against this page are based on the simple quantitative method (like how many publications the subject has etc). It seems that User:Rosguill is not aware of the subject's works and especially the quality of the work. In philosophical works number and pages doesn't count, but what counts is the quality of the idea. I propose that Wikipedia shouldn't remove this page, this page will help the current and future students to know more about a hard working and genius philosopher who is not in the limelight. I propose that the entry shouldn't be removed. —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Being a member of a research institute is not cause for notability by itself, and nothing in the article rises to the level of WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or any other notability criterion. I did find one published review of her 2017 book [1] but that's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2019 (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.