Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruchi Dass

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 The author removed all content except the AfD notice, and I have speedy-deleted it under CSD G7 (One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). JamesBWatson (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchi Dass

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

nn puff piece Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a very few people in the world who have done something credible in mhealth and those who are need to be featured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.130.179 (talk)

Comment – Just saying something is so does not make it true. The article fails to provide adequate reliable sources to support the claim of notability. In addition, please do not remove the AfD notice from the article, it will not stop the process and is considered vandalism. ttonyb (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as-is this is a puff piece. 122.169.130.179 says that subject has done something credible in "mhealth"... what is it? I don't see anything in the article. l'aquatique[talk] 16:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - puffery and fluff; full of peacock words and honorifics to disguise lack of solid content. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SPA most likely involved in nothing more than WP:AUTO & WP:COI, with zero notability demonstrated. Qworty (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2011 (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.