Talk:Gitanjali Rao (inventor)

Notability
Can you explain why this is notable? It's a child who has only received media attention for one event. None of the other winners of that same award are notable either. And things like " Her parents regularly take her to museums. They encourage her curiosity and support her experiments." really aren't encyclopedic. Natureium (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Whilst she may only be a child, she is already notable - even more so than Deepika Kurup, the 2012 winner. She wasn't only noted for one event - and since winning in 2017 has been included in the 2019 Forbes 30 Under 30 list (https://www.forbes.com/profile/gitanjali-rao/) and featured on CNN (https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/28/health/gitanjali-rao-young-scientist-winner/index.html). She did a TED talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVgaJN3GI6U. I think there's enough on her to pass GNG. Jesswade88 (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * TEDX, not TED -- there's a gulf of difference between the two. We have consistently rejected Forbes list as any minimum indicator of notability. The CNN interview is about the BLP1E locus. There's a swath of other pathetic sources and the EPA award does not confer notability either. &#x222F; WBG converse 21:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I had no idea you could just delete pages without a vote, or even tagging them for improvement? Is that fair? Jesswade88 (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , quite much fair.
 * When you are afforded the scope of discussion (right now, there are two talk-back messages over your t/p inquiring about prospective notability of the subjects and other issues), you don't participate.
 * Unless and until someone redirects it or send it for a trial by fire, you are as good as absent. If you want people to exhibit maximal fairness, you need to address the concerns raised by others. &#x222F; WBG converse 06:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, apologies, alongside not realising that it was okay for you to just to delete pages I have written, I hadn't realised that if I didn't respond to every page of mine that you are criticising it gave you permission to do what you wanted. ""When you are afforded the scope of discussion" ??"
 * Unless and until someone redirects it or send it for a trial by fire, you are as good as absent. If you want people to exhibit maximal fairness, you need to address the concerns raised by others. &#x222F; WBG converse 06:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, apologies, alongside not realising that it was okay for you to just to delete pages I have written, I hadn't realised that if I didn't respond to every page of mine that you are criticising it gave you permission to do what you wanted. ""When you are afforded the scope of discussion" ??"
 * ?? I hadn't seen those two messages and have responded now (with a gap of one day), but I still don't think that this is your encyclopaedia to "afford" me anything - I contribute in my own free time and am doing the best I can.Jesswade88 (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "... you need to address the concerns raised by others..."?????? She doesn't need to address anything. What website do you think you're on? WP:VOLUNTEER, . You got a problem? WP:SOFIXIT. Leviv&thinsp;ich 21:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , which part of WP:ENGAGE is not understandable?
 * And, I see that Jess was the user, who began the stuff about fairness. As much as she have a right to not discuss her own edits, I have a right to be not fair but in a manner that is perfectly consistent with other policies. &#x222F; WBG converse 07:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the matter is not solely about the last two talk-back messages over her t/p. There have been other cases, where she have been pinged to clarify her edits, over the article t/p but she had chosen to not respond whilst continuing on her daily article creation(s). &#x222F; WBG converse 07:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, for every bluelink there is an equal and opposite bluelink. In this case, I think you should WP:DISENGAGE with Wade. Leviv&thinsp;ich 13:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , to be fair, am reading the latter for the first time :-) &#x222F; WBG converse 16:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Natureium that a redirect to the competition would be the best course of action, but regardless of whether she is GNG notable, the descriptor "scientist" is misleading and inappropriate for someone who hasn't even started high school, who doesn't have any scientific publications and who isn't notable for "science" in the conventional sense. She was a participant in a science-related competition specifically for middle school pupils when she was 11 years old, but that doesn't make her a "scientist" any more than other middle school pupils who have "science" classes in school (i.e. science as a school subject). "Contestant" would be a more suitable descriptor. --Tataral (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted because there needs to be a debate about notability, you can't just delete pages because you don't believe them to be notable. If the community decides she isn't notable, then fine delete - but you should only do that after a debate, not before  Duncan.Hull (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the same goes for too, add a notability tag if you believe the subject is not notable
 * , I boldly redirect pages all the time. It's allowed. Natureium (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * well I think it would be bolder to have a discussion Duncan.Hull (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think having a discussion is a good idea, but it's the opposite of WP:BOLD :) Natureium (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not the opposite, but an important step towards reaching consensus as per WP:BRD. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not the opposite, but an important step towards reaching consensus as per WP:BRD. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Major Flaws With Article
I'm highly sceptical of the subject of this article even meeting Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines and will propose the article for deletion in the near future. Notwithstanding this, I've noticed multiple major flaws with this article:

1) As Tataral had noted in an earlier discussion, Gitanjali Rao isn't a scientist and the Article's title being Gitanjali Rao (Scientist) is highly problematic. As he said, "Scientist is misleading and inappropriate for someone who has barely started high school, doesn't have any scientific publications and who isn't notable for "science" in the conventional sense. She was a participant in a science-related competition specifically for middle school pupils when she was 11 years old, but that doesn't make her a "scientist" any more than other middle school pupils who have "science" classes in school" or made volcanoes at science fairs. This needs to be addressed.

2) So much of the content of this article is unencyclopedic. Things like "According to her mother, when Rao was three years old, she asked what she could do to help someone who was sick; playing music was suggested." (how is this relevant?), " She is a 3-time TEDx Speaker" (almost anyone can be a TedX speaker), "She learned about the carbon nanotubes while reading the Massachusetts Institute of Technology website" and "  Rao has expressed interest in studying genetics" have no place in an encyclopedia.

Zuko1050 (talk) 10:17, 18 Sep 2021(UTC)

Age?
Which is "best"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 11 in 2019
 * 11 in 2017

One more, undated: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Move target
"Scientist" isn't accurate. How about a move to "science student"? VQuakr (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Favored "contestant" or simply "student" for me. Augend  (drop a line) 23:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hard pass on "contestant". "Student" works. I can submit a move proposal later, assuming the AFD results in a keep, if no one gets to it first. VQuakr (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree with "student". "Scientist" is only being used in human interest hype stories, not by independent academic sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move to inventor (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc . talk  16:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Gitanjali Rao (scientist) → Gitanjali Rao (student) – More accurate parenthetical dismabiguator. VQuakr (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to Gitanjali Rao (inventor). Agree that "scientist" is inaccurate. 162 etc. (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (inventor) is the better of the two. Theoretically we could make her "the" Gitanjali Rao and move the other one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * good idea. Looking at the |Gitanjali_Rao_(scientist) pageviews, I agree this topic is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by a somewhat narrow margin. So we would move Gitanjali Rao to Gitanjali Rao (actor) and then Gitanjali Rao (scientist) to Gitanjali Rao. The actresses's page has no move history so I think that portion is uncontroversial, but I can close this discussion and open a multi page move request if anyone thinks that is warranted. thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral on the primary topic aspect. 162 etc. (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Prefer "student" - 'inventor', imo, implies some degree of consistency of novelty. Her primary occupation is a student. Augend  (drop a line) 17:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the spirit of MOS:DATED, I think inventor is better. The "statement" (student) is likely to become outdated. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not too sure - she's starting college, so that's about 4 years right off the bat. Imho she's likely to become an academic or researcher on credentials alone - hence, inventor suffers from the same problem. Augend  (drop a line) 19:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Her claim to notability is as an inventor - being a student is not really a basis for having an encyclopedia article written about you. 162 etc. (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support Gitanjali Rao (inventor). "Student" is a daft disambiguator. We were all students once. It's no more useful than Gitanjali Rao (person)! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As nom, I'd like to clarify that I'm good with Gitanjali Rao (inventor), too. VQuakr (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)