Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leena Chatterjee


 * 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   Delete
 * This was a hard one to judge, as it was nearly equally !voted as 'delete' and 'keep'. Relisting for a third time isn't really an option, as I think it'd still be at an impass at the end of that week! The coverage in Business today, etc, are useful, but I think that Agricola44's analysis is the clinching argument for deleting this article. I also note that most of the keeps are 'weak' keeps. I feel that the consensus is just on the side of deletion. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Leena Chatterjee

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable per WP:ACADEMIC, no evidence of research online that has made significant impact in her discipline, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Prod contested by creator, who has claimed slight WP:COI on user talk page. MuffledThud (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —MuffledThud (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. H-index of 3 is very low. The teaching awards do not contribute towards notability. StAnselm (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep - she has had some coverage in indian mainstream financial media. Business today has done a cover story of her (along with eight others). Has been quoted in The Telegraph1,the telegraph2, Business today, India today, Indian express, Financial express, business line.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak delete despite Sodabottle's helpful collection of sources. The article itself doesn't convince me she passes WP:PROF or WP:GNG, and a handful of trivial mentions in newspaper articles doesn't make much difference. The Business Today piece is less trivial, but listing her as one of the nine best business school professors selected from only three universities doesn't really impress me either. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * weak Keep I'll accept the   BT articles--that these are probably the three top schools is different than if it were three random ones.    DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to clarify - the three covered institutes (IIMs A, B and C) are the top three business schools in the country (almost all rankings agree on this).. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep: The fact that all aspects of actual teaching play no role in WP: PROF seems questionable IMHO. However, that's another discussion, and - based on these criteria - it seems close to impossible to prove notability based on the 9 criteria. However, for some reason the alternative standard "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" is mentioned. Based on this, Chatterjee is without any doubt notable. She is full professor af a top-rated business school. She is cited to be known as an outstanding teacher, and is therefore obviously more often asked for an interview than even an average instructor/professor at her institution. No doubt it is debatable whether the alternative standard is to be accepted as replacement for the 9 criteria. However, even if not taken as general guideline, it is at least there to have a solid discussion basis for cases such as this. PanchoS (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have searched WoS in a variety of ways for her publications, e.g. for author "Chatterjee L*", "Bhattacharyya AND Chatterjee", "Bhattacharyya AND Leena C*" with and without the schools' names, etc. finding nothing (Note the erroneous way in which first name and surname are swapped in the bibliography). Some of the research titles listed in the article are not in peer-reviewed publications, but are rather simply internal "white papers". What this indicates is that none of her works are published in any of the roughly 140 mainstream journals of management or social psychology (her fields of specialty) that are indexed by WoS – clear failure of WP:PROF #1. The teaching award is from an alumni association, so it does not count as a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" as described by #2. She is not an elected member of a prestigious society (#3), not in a named or distinguished chair (#5), not editor of well-established journal (#8), etc. etc. In short, none of the criteria in WP:PROF are satisfied. As David Eppstein has already mentioned above, some briefs in newspapers do not in and of themselves confer notability, and that seems to be all that is left here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete. The careful analysis above indicates that notability is not achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Weak Keep - IIM is a top rated management school in India/Asia (we don’t have a reliable data to compare it with Wharton school at Penn for example – I would say IIM is as good as it gets…). Chairperson of the Placements Cell of the institute of IIM qualifies her for #5 WP:PROF. She is full professor of a top-rated business school in Asia/world. I would argue that this should be at least a weak keep.   thx.--kaeiou (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.