Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pallavi Banerjee


 * 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 Draftify. I just hope that editors here are willing to spend time working on this draft. Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Pallavi Banerjee

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Recently prodded by, deprodded by an IP editor; I am finding it difficult to assume good faith on the deprod. I think it is WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF notability for this 2012 PhD and current associate professor. I see only a double handful of citations of the subject's work. There appear to be several books, so WP:NAUTHOR notability is plausible, but I did not find book reviews to meet this criterion. No other signs of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Social science,  and Canada. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Beyond the lack of published book reviews (my searches only found one review of one book, ) and the inadequate number of citations (making WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF notability look dubious) the article is quite promotional, and makes some claims that appear quite overstated. For instance, "her collaborative book, Immigrant Women Workers in the Neoliberal Age"? She is not one of the principals of this book (its three listed editors), merely one of many contributors. So in the event that some reason is found to keep this, it would need heavy cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or drafify. In addition to what is said above, I'll stress the issue with promotional exaggeration, which at at first made me consider this a case of WP:COI (red flag is the link to a profile described as "her partner" - this kind of personal information is eyebrow-raising). Much of the reception is written as if "Banerjee and Connell" are major co-authors, but a search in Decentering Social Theory does not return any results for Banerjee (just Connell). This is just a variation of the puffery found in other parts of the article, such as "Banerjee is widely recognized for their work on Southern Theory" - cited to their own paper. So, the article states, in effect, that Banerjee is recognized as important by Banerjee - but not, apparently, by anyone else of note. This is not well written, at minimum. Maybe she will be notable eventually, but for now this is just reads like an embarassing attempt at promoting one person (failing WP:GNG, WP:NPOV, etc.). However, although it reads like a failed COI PROMO, I'll note that the article is a creation of an educational course . So WP:AGF this is probably a well-meaning attempt at addressing Wikipedia's gender gap in coverage; unfortunately in this case the chosen article is not about a notable person. I'll ping course Wiki Edu supporting staff: User:Helaine (Wiki Ed), User:Ian (Wiki Ed), User:Brianda (Wiki Ed) and instructors, User:Ingotsofcopper, User:Outwestwarrior, with a note to have students review WP:PROF and WP:NBIO as well as WP:NPOV and WP:OR before the next set of assignments. PS. There is some helpful discussion at the student's page at User talk:Cb21519. I hope the student won't be discouraged, but will learn how to write more neutral content about, well, more notable individuals.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel 5969  TT me 10:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Drafity The article is too WP:PROMO. There might be a basis to write one, I was able to establish that she is often quoted in the media, maybe a bit of an exert in migration and gender issues, but the article cannot remain up in its current form. If the author was willing to rewrite it with only what made the news and complied with normal guidelines, draftifying could be good, but not if it is just going to be put back into main space without serious editing. Some sources:
 * 1) https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/calgary-professor-receives-1m-in-funding-to-research-with-immigrant-refugee-youth-1.5900046
 * 2) https://www.studyinternational.com/news/participation-rate-uk/ CT55555 (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify Agree with the above explanations, I think we can cobble together an article, but what's here now isn't quite at wiki standards yet. I'd encourage the editor who started it to give it another shot! Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Draftify - Unfortunately these students are being given poor advice and encouraged to move their articles to mainspace before they are ready. Deb (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2023 (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.