Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nandini Sundar


 * 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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Nandini Sundar

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Most of the article is based on primary sources. The person lacks notability. I couldn't find much in reliable sources. Human rights work and controversies section reads like a news report and doesn't feel encyclopedic. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets at least the first couple of criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the nomination, there are quite a few secondary sources cited in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - easily meets WP:PROF, with a number of widely cited papers: . There's also several reviews and other coverage of a book she wrote:, , , , . Vanamonde (Talk) 19:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The GS profile looks quite healthy (259,211,195,177,161) with a slow tail off, excluding one that does not list the subject as an author; meets my definition of WP:PROF. Also seems to have been editor of Contributions to Indian Sociology. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meet the Criterion 1 of WP:PROF the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work 1. Fifthapril (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Citations good enough for WP:PROF and Infosys Prize might be significant enough for #C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: She is the recipient of Infosys Prize so might be notable as 98% Laureates are notable. Contributor008 (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2022 (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.