Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neri I. Karra


 * 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. Consensus is that she does not meet notability criteria as an academic or as an entrepreneur. --MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Neri I. Karra

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable bio, lacks reliable references. Ireneshih (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  15:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment- Please check any instance of socks, user has created page by name Neri I. Karra and his contributions appears dodgy, this page was deleted three times by name Neri Karra. Ireneshih (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep- this page should not be deleted because it is new page from scratch not same as previous page. I did not author previous article it is a new one and I am not the same person who wrote last page years ago, i do not know who was the author of previous page. You may compare my article with deleted page. This article should be KEPT because it has many many reliable sources such as NESTA, forbes, telegraph, vogue and others  which previous author may not have used. --Scoopie-213 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Scoopie-213 as I can understand you are a newbie on Wikipedia, I will suggest to understand what is considered primary and what is secondary sources. The content is WP:FRINGE. Ireneshih (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A Question for Scoopie-213, if you are not related Neri Karra or any previous editor, why did you created a page by name Neri I. Karra and not just Neri Karra. It clearly indicated your involvement with her and reflects a WP:COI Ireneshih (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't care why the page was made or if there is any sock-puppetry involved: it's our job to evaluate the page on its merits, not on who made it or why. I think many good articles were written for "social justice," or "promotional" purposes; that doesn't make them bad articles as long as they are neutral in tone and well-written. In addition, a person can be notable even if the references aren't included in the article itself. That said, this article does cite her research, she shows up in the news and in RS. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Megalibrarygirl, Did you really checked the references? The argument then comes down to whether interviews are enough to pass the gng. There is a wide consensus that they do not - indeed they are considered primary not secondary sources as the information comes from the subject not an independent source. Forbes references is a mere mention, Elle is again isn't really much to go on by way of reliable independent sources. Subject has coverage in tabloid media (newspapers) and magazines, which are not reliable sources and perhaps not fully independent of the subject. For any sock-puppetry involved is concerned, please refer to WP:G5, you will come to know why you MUST have a concern. If we have to have an article it should follow our pseudoscience rules and point out that what she says is nonsense, though I know of no reliable sources that has paid attention to her. Ireneshih (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , my point isn't that sock puppetry isn't a problem, it's that it shouldn't influence the discussion here. I've seen a lot of articles started for shaky reasons that turned out to be good articles in the long run. I assume good faith always. Thanks for pointing me to WP:G5, but it isn't relevant here as far as I can tell. Also, my point is that searching for her, she's in the news a lot. Her work is published in peer-reviewed journals. Do I think there needs to be more to the article? Yes. But that's not a reason to delete. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * two more. They are neutral citations from credible sources. I have not written promotional content I am very very sure it is all information only. Ireneshih is mistaken and I is her middle initial. Coverage, interviews and discussion about her full life story and brand from many many good sources and news papers prove her notable. --Scoopie-213 (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Uncertain basically but if I have to say, I'll say delete for now actually as although I found some links at News, Books, Highbeam and Scholar, there's nothing convincingly better regarding in-depth coverage. Notifying for some insight.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. First of all, not a notable academic: Getting a PhD does not make one an academic, but one's subsequent work: as far as I can tell there's her thesis and one published paper; no regular academic positions. Second, not a notable author, the thesis is is no Worldcat libraries, and the other book isn't even in worldcat. When I see such claims, which are not only unverifiable but verifiably false, I tend to be rather dubious about the entire article. Publishing reports is not notability ; getting media coverage for someone working in fashion is a matter of PR, not notability. giving a TEDx talk means giving a talk in TED format, which anyone can do who cares to. It does not even contribute to notability.  Claims for notability as a "motivational speaker" are meaningless--its a profession that amounts to self-promotion, not accomplishments--somewherei n the general direct of "life coach" I consider both of the red flags. "entrepreneur" is a person who has founded a notable company, not just a small business.    I do not assume good faith with articles that resort to puffery and have no substance: I call them promotional, and the sooner we get them out of WP,  the better.  them otivean aticle gets here is not necessarily determinative, but it most certainly can confirm the impression of promotionalism. i would consider this essentially a G11.  DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not true that she has only one publication:


 * 1) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883902612000043
 * 2) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024630108000484
 * 3) http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/11/29/etp-special-issue-on-family-firms/
 * 4) http://orm.sagepub.com/content/11/3/541.abstract
 * 5) http://soq.sagepub.com/reports/most-read (Most Read)
 * 6) http://soq.sagepub.com/content/7/3/339.refs
 * 7) http://iveybusinessjournal.com/author/nkarra/
 * 8) http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/proceedings/26530223/rethinking-institutional-distance-using-neo-institutional-theory-inform-international-management

Moreover, this is not a small business. The brand is present in 14 different countries, 27 stores, 100s of stockist, with over 1000s of employees. When there are many news papers saying that about a business spread this much it is notable business. The report NESTA sponsored and mentioned on wikipedia page was budgeted 2 million pound worth of research project, which was led and written by Neri.--Scoopie-213 (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Many references, but I see nothing that indicates notability. Maproom (talk) 13:40, 23 November 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.