Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Venkatesan

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Priya Venkatesan}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Priya Venkatesan}})

This appears to violate WP:BLP1E. The only secondary sources provided are about a single event, her claiming she will file a suit against students, and do not show the event was significant or lasting (sources are dated late April or early May 2008) and the subject is a low-profile person. In addition, The Dartmouth Independent appears to be a student publication which no longer exists so a weak source (WP:RSSM), the WSJ is an op-ed so also a weak source, The Telegraph is a brief mention as is The Chronicle of Higher Education. S0091 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, India, and New York. S0091 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: Only media coverage is for a similarly named individual doing polio research. Nothing found for this person. Events described seem trivial, could be seen as an attempt to shame the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• :Yeah, it's odd this all happened in 2008 but the article was just created last month. S0091 (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• ::Honestly, I wrote the article because it was on the requested article list and the requester had included quite a few sources - maybe it had been added to the list years prior and no one had written it yet. I wasn't as familiar with BLP1E as I am now that this has been discussed, so I probably should've looked at that more before writing the article :P (Not !voting because I am far too tired to have coherent thoughts on this right now thanks to IRL stuff) Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• :::@Suntooooth thanks for the information. I do see you posted a WP:NPOVN to get guidance regarding the subject's complaints but I think deletion is probably best in this case. Live, learn and get some rest. S0091 (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how they would pass WP:NPROF and the rest runs afoul of WP:BLP1E. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Is the subject the author of the NICE guideline on long Covid (cited 376 times)? It's the same name but there's no affiliation. There's other well-cited papers on Covid and other topics but they seem to skip around topics, and I'm not sure whether they are all by the same subject. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

::I note that the subject {{u|Priya.hays}} has tried to edit the article, including starting and reverting an AfD nomination, and has attempted to get the article edited on the talk page. Perhaps they would care to comment directly here? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

::I believe the author of the Lancet items is a Priya Venkatesan who got a PhD in pharmacology from Imperial College London [https://uk.linkedin.com/in/priya-venkatesan-8919ab149], while the subject of this article got a PhD in literature from UCSD and was using the last name "Hays" by the time of [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7832375/ NICE guideline on long COVID] (2021). See the [https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=xTnSPucAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate GS profile for "Priya Hays"]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

:::Thanks, that does seem correct. Delete, as no evidence of meeting WP:PROF, and no lasting impact of the incident described. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete unless some cause of notability emerges. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC).
• Delete: I agree with the nominator. JFHJr (㊟) 03:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete A minor dust-up a decade and a half ago that seems to have sustained no lasting interest is not a solid foundation for an article, and I'm not finding a WP:PROF pass apart from that. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete: no evidence of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete outright. She threatened an action to which she eventually did not proceed and she must be considered notable for that? If only sources would support such inanity. Thankfully, they do not. The text needs to be dismissed with prejudice. -The Gnome (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.