Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parosha Chandran

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nearlyevil665 (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parosha Chandran

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable professor of law. No presence on Google Scholar. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The subject is a notable lawyer. The legal publications are relevant to notability. WP:NPROF may not be applicable here. Vikram Vincent 13:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NPROF. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep although the article can be revised to incorporate additional sources. She is the subject of in-depth coverage from the Guardian in 2020, and per WP:ANYBIO, there are awards to consider, including the Trafficking in Persons Hero Award 2015 (VOA, 2015), (SOS Kerry, 2015), (The Scotsman 2016), the Law Society’s Barrister of the Year Award (2008) and the Society of Asian Lawyers’ Pro Bono/Human Rights Lawyer of the Year Award (2009) (The Times, 2009). In addition, per WP:NPROF, Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area, and she seems to frequently appear in conventional media as an expert, e.g. Reuters 2021, Reuters 2020, UG Mirror 2018, The Independent 2017, ABC AU 2017, Evening Standard, 2017, CBC 2014, BBC 2013, BBC 2013 (she was an attorney in this case), BBC 2013 (also an attorney in this case), BBC 2000. Per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Beccaynr (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking notable to me - also per the sources above. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:06, 3 April 2021 (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.