Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dee Datta


 * 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. regardless of the irrelevant delete !vote of the apparent SPA,  there actually is no evidence of notability. Not yet notable.  DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dee Datta

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indications of notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn't show to meet WP:NACADEMICS Other infos like here or here or here also don't indicate notability. Optimale  Gu 13:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Searching finds nothing satisfying WP:PROF or WP:GNG. -- 120.17.117.224 (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article has a weird history. Created with quite a bit more content, much of which was later removed, mostly by IPs - these edits particularly noticeable, as they remove the Allozyne connection, which the same IP also removed from the Allozyne article. Edit summaries indicate removing inaccurate information, yet it's clear from trivial googling that she was a founder and hard to conceive of that statement as a BLP issue. Don't know what's going on there, but in any case being a cofounder of a smallish biotech that just got sold off for scrap doesn't really clear the notability bar. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sole source mentions the subject only trivially, and doesn't give evidence for notability. As O.r. states, the past history of the article also does not show notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly does not qualify BLP at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormantos (talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.