500:
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.
373:, 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
403:, 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.
266:- 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
499:
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
427:
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
351:
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
563:
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
352:
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.
166:
385:
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.
557:
449:
119:
160:
214:
476:
actually as although I found some links at News, Books, Highbeam and
Scholar, there's nothing convincingly better regarding in-depth coverage. Notifying
297:
as I can understand you are a newbie on
Knowledge, I will suggest to understand what is considered primary and what is secondary sources. The content is
558:
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/proceedings/26530223/rethinking-institutional-distance-using-neo-institutional-theory-inform-international-management
126:
92:
87:
271:
96:
17:
79:
181:
148:
457:
531:
610:
408:
357:
40:
486:
142:
564:
wikipedia page was budgeted 2 million pound worth of research project, which was led and written by Neri.--
591:
573:
511:
491:
461:
453:
440:
412:
395:
361:
339:
310:
282:
258:
230:
206:
138:
61:
425:
224:
606:
569:
436:
278:
83:
36:
526:
521:
404:
370:
353:
188:
219:
481:
391:
335:
306:
254:
202:
174:
75:
67:
52:. Consensus is that she does not meet notability criteria as an academic or as an entrepreneur. --
57:
429:
319:, if you are not related Neri Karra or any previous editor, why did you created a page by name
587:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
605:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
270:
because it has many many reliable sources such as NESTA, forbes, telegraph, vogue and others
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
565:
432:
316:
298:
294:
274:
154:
400:
387:
331:
302:
250:
198:
507:
328:
53:
583:
536:
378:
423:
113:
552:
532:
http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/11/29/etp-special-issue-on-family-firms/
245:
and his contributions appears dodgy, this page was deleted three times by name
547:
541:
502:
477:
241:- Please check any instance of socks, user has created page by name
527:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024630108000484
522:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883902612000043
599:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
582:. Many references, but I see nothing that indicates notability.
327:. It clearly indicated your involvement with her and reflects a
246:
109:
105:
101:
173:
517:It is not true that she has only one publication:
450:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
613:). No further edits should be made to this page.
537:http://orm.sagepub.com/content/11/3/541.abstract
553:http://iveybusinessjournal.com/author/nkarra/
187:
8:
448:Note: This debate has been included in the
213:Note: This debate has been included in the
197:Non-notable bio, lacks reliable references.
548:http://soq.sagepub.com/content/7/3/339.refs
273:which previous author may not have used. --
215:list of People-related deletion discussions
447:
212:
472:basically but if I have to say, I'll say
542:http://soq.sagepub.com/reports/most-read
375:any sock-puppetry involved is concerned
7:
24:
381:, you will come to know why you
428:news papers prove her notable.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
592:13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
574:06:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
512:07:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
492:05:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
462:18:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
441:05:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
413:21:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
396:19:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
362:18:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
340:19:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
311:19:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
283:17:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
259:16:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
231:15:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
207:15:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
62:02:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
630:
602:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
480:for some insight.
377:, please refer to
464:
454:Shawn in Montreal
233:
621:
604:
489:
484:
229:
227:
222:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
48:The result was
34:
629:
628:
624:
623:
622:
620:
619:
618:
617:
611:deletion review
600:
487:
482:
405:Megalibrarygirl
371:Megalibrarygirl
354:Megalibrarygirl
315:A Question for
225:
220:
218:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
627:
625:
616:
615:
595:
594:
561:
560:
555:
550:
545:
539:
534:
529:
524:
515:
514:
494:
483:SwisterTwister
474:delete for now
466:
465:
444:
443:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
365:
364:
345:
344:
343:
342:
313:
286:
285:
261:
235:
234:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
626:
614:
612:
608:
603:
597:
596:
593:
589:
585:
581:
578:
577:
576:
575:
571:
567:
559:
556:
554:
551:
549:
546:
543:
540:
538:
535:
533:
530:
528:
525:
523:
520:
519:
518:
513:
509:
505:
504:
498:
495:
493:
490:
485:
479:
475:
471:
468:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
446:
445:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
424:
422:
421:
414:
410:
406:
402:
399:
398:
397:
393:
389:
384:
380:
376:
372:
369:
368:
367:
366:
363:
359:
355:
350:
347:
346:
341:
337:
333:
330:
326:
323:and not just
322:
321:Neri I. Karra
318:
314:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
293:
290:
289:
288:
287:
284:
280:
276:
272:
269:
265:
262:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
243:Neri I. Karra
240:
237:
236:
232:
228:
223:
216:
211:
210:
209:
208:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:Neri I. Karra
73:
72:
69:
68:Neri I. Karra
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
601:
598:
579:
562:
516:
501:
496:
473:
469:
382:
374:
348:
324:
320:
291:
267:
263:
242:
238:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
566:Scoopie-213
544:(Most Read)
433:Scoopie-213
317:Scoopie-213
295:Scoopie-213
275:Scoopie-213
161:free images
325:Neri Karra
247:Neri Karra
607:talk page
470:Uncertain
401:Ireneshih
388:Ireneshih
332:Ireneshih
303:Ireneshih
299:WP:FRINGE
251:Ireneshih
199:Ireneshih
37:talk page
609:or in a
120:View log
54:MelanieN
39:or in a
584:Maproom
497:Delete.
292:Comment
239:Comment
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
580:Delete
329:WP:COI
139:Google
97:delete
50:Delete
508:talk
379:WP:G5
226:Talk
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
588:talk
570:talk
488:talk
458:talk
437:talk
409:talk
392:talk
383:MUST
358:talk
349:Keep
336:talk
307:talk
279:talk
268:KEPT
264:Keep
255:talk
221:Musa
203:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
503:DGG
478:DGG
189:TWL
118:– (
590:)
572:)
510:)
460:)
452:.
439:)
431:--
411:)
394:)
360:)
338:)
309:)
301:.
281:)
257:)
249:.
217:.
205:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
586:(
568:(
506:(
456:(
435:(
407:(
390:(
356:(
334:(
305:(
277:(
253:(
201:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.