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. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hemlata Mahishwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I can not locate any references that meet WP:RS except BBC. Fails WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and India. AndySailz (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I am a member of the Women in Red project, and as part of that initiative, I actively work on creating more Wikipedia articles about notable women. Regarding the subject in question, they are also notable as an author. Moreover, reliable sources such as 'Newsclick', 'Sahapedia', 'BBC', and 'Forward Press' have covered them in-depth, clearly demonstrating that the subject meets WP:GNG. Best! Baqi:) (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Membership in the in Red project does not imply the ability to produce non-notable subjects. Aside from the BBC, Newsclick, Sahapedia, and Forward Press are unreliable sources that are deficient in credibility. WP:RS. AndySailz (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Baqi think the subject passes WP:GNG and there are Hindi languages sources as well as she writes in Hindi.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pharaoh of the Wizards, On what ground the subject passes GNG. Let's discuss about the references. AndySailz (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per full professor at two notable universities (one established more than a century ago) and female academic in a place where professors are rare clear pass of the average professor test. (p.s. to AndySailz -- responding to every comment at AfD w/o supporters w/o specific rebuttals is rarely the way to make a winning argument) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please make an argument on the basis of significant references. It is only WP:VAGUEWAVE, At policies it will not work. AndySailz (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I do not see anything that passes the average professor test here. Being a professor, even at well-established universities, is exactly the thing that does _not_ pass this test. Citations are low, and none of the other criteria seem to be passed. It looks more likely that the subject here passes WP:NAUTHOR, but this would generally require reviews of her books, which I did not find. Following in case better evidence of notability emerges. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Russ Woodroofe : Hey Russ, thank you for your comments. As an author, Hemlata has written several books, and you can check out their reviews by clicking on the following links: Link 1, Link 2, Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 and Link 6. These reviews are from reliable sources as well. I appreciate your time and interest. Thanks again:) Baqi:) (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Aren't these all newspapers? The reviews that are needed to establish notability as an author - see Wikipedia:NAUTHOR- would be reviews in academic sources, not news sources. Still, if these are truly independent reviews in newspapers, perhaps they could contribute to [[WP:GNG]]... Qflib (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree with Russ Woodroofe — I don't see a WP:GNG pass, and I'm not convinced that she clearly passes any of the WP:NPROF criteria. Based on the sources so far my sense is that she surely must pass WP:NAUTHOR, but I don't think the sources that have been found are quite enough to actually demonstrate that yet. Of the six sources about her books above, (1) only has a paragraph about her book (which is not nothing, given that it's a retrospective on the best books of the year in what seems to be a reliable publication, but is not a full review), (2) only has a brief mention of her work, (3) and (5) are interviews, (4) is not really a review, and (6) is probably the closest but spends a lot of time just repeating her poems. My feeling is that based on everything implied by her career and by how she is described in the sources, there surely must be at least two full length reviews of her work out there (maybe in more academic or literary publications?). But I can't find any in English and searching in Hindi using Google Translate was proving to be beyond my abilities. So I would like to say keep, but I would like to see a full-length review of one of her published works first. MCE89 (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The subject clearly meets WP:GNG. Additionally, reviews of their books are available in reliable sources, demonstrating that they also meet WP:NAUTHOR. Furthermore, as a female academic in a region where professors are rare, they clearly pass the average professor test. Taabii (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it doesn't. WP:VAGUEWAVE at policies will not work. AndySailz (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @AndySailz: Please avoid using arguments as outlined in WP:ATA—it's up to other editors to decide. Again, thank you! Baqi:) (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  AndySailz, although I agree with you that the keep !votes are not necessarily very policy-based, I think your opinion is clear, and (per WP:BLUDGEON), it is time to stand back a little bit. Sometimes, something is wrong on the internet [1]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2025 (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.