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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyani Vallath[edit]

Kalyani Vallath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The subject has received some coverage in indepdent RS such as this one and this but still does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines. She is author of a book - Contemporary Encyclopaedia of British Literature - which is not notable (at least by WP standards). The subject fails to meet both WP:AUTHOR and basic GNG IMO. Perhaps Wikipedia:NotJustYet. Saqib (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 11:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 11:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 11:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - So it's a self-published encyclopedia according to this source, which also has all of the hallmarks of sponsored content (what's the story here -- a person is self-publishing an encyclopedia of English literature, deferring to that person's words/descriptions for nearly all of the piece). There's also this one in addition to those linked in the nomination above. The publications themselves seem fairly legit, but I can't get past the promotional feel of some of the content to keep (nor do I have evidence of that promotional quality to justify !voting delete). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment There is no doubt that she has been in many news and has been well known among literature student in India. I've searched the sources about this figure and found that she qualifies to be in wiki. ( vote - Keep)AntiHeroAnkit (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antites.

• Weak delete. The Menon Hindu piece goes a long way towards meeting WP:GNG. But all the other sources I can find are either also non-independent of the subject or the Hindu sources, only mention her briefly (as the Deccan Chronicle source in the article does), or are too promotionally written for me to consider them reliable (as the fwdlife.in source and the Aswin Hindu sources are). The pattern of promotional editing here is also unhelpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2018 (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.