Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vageshwari Deswal (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Vageshwari Deswal
AfDs for this article:


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

The only things that comes close to meeting notability is that she was the editor of Delhi Journal of Contemporary Law. I checked WP:NPROF only chief editor or head editor would make the cut. I checked the attached reference she is not the editor-in-chief. KSAWikipedian (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. KSAWikipedian (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I restored content that was removed by the nom before the article was nominated for deletion, . Her role as a "public intellectual" was discussed as support for her notability in the previous AfD. Beccaynr (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails to pass WP:Prof with minuscule citations on GS. Also fails GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC).
 * Weak Delete I am less convinced than I was in the previous AfD about WP:NPROF C7, including because I now have access to the WP Library. After conducting some additional searches, there does not appear to be strong support for a substantial impact outside academia, e.g. secondary commentary about her writing, or further citations of her work. It seems WP:TOOSOON to support this article with the available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I note that she is quoted in newspapers and writes articles in newspapers about her speciality, which to me satisfies criteria 7 of WP:NACADEMIC It's not the most compelling example, but I think it meets the criteria. CT55555 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see that too, however even the way that is written is WP:OR I don't think this is enough to meet the criteria 7. KSAWikipedian (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm based my comment on my WP:BEFORE searches, rather than the current sourcing, which I think it the AfD correct approach. CT55555 (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as per WP:NEXIST. WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Only four media mentions are brought forward. If there are a few more it could meet criterium 7? JamesKH76 (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:NACADEMIC C7 states, A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark, and while I had hoped that additional searches would identify more than what appears in the article, particularly with access to the WP Library, there does not appear to be much more than a small number of quotes, in addition to the TOI/Economic Times blog, which does not appear to be frequently cited nor the focus of WP:SECONDARY sources that could otherwise help support notability per this or other criteria. Beccaynr (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as per comments by Beccaynr. Articles written by the subject are WP:PRIMARY sources even if in newspapers. Being quoted goes a little bit towards WP:GNG though. I'm not convinced passes WP:NPROF. Not convinced passes WP:NAUTHOR either, but would be happy to be proved wrong. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that when she is quoted in her capacity as an expert, this provides some support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability, because the context is a form of WP:SECONDARY support for her notability. We unfortunately do not appear to have sufficient support for an article at this time, but I would also be happy if further support from sources is identified during this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per Beccaynr does not pass WP:PROF. 93.189.6.34 (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. I see a consistent effort over time at being a public intellectual, as I take to be the intent of WP:NPROF C7.  There is some weaker evidence of impact, but I agree with  that assessing substantial impact is difficult.  Partly this is because of the background of the Indian media landscape, and I am giving some benefit of doubt here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Just wanted to point out that her university biography identifies her as a full professor. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The university biography seems to show she is a full professor (thanks for the tip, Liz). Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that she is a full professor was added to the article in the last AfD. But while full professors at major universities are often notable, being a full professor is not in itself a pass of WP:NPROF or any other notability criteria. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Ross. Part of NPROF says "Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level". Have I misunderstood how this applies to full professors? If so, apologies and I will reconsider my !vote. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , Criterion 5 requires a named position (with a title that might look something like "the John and Jane T. Fancypants distinguished professor of law"), which is generally an honor on top of full professor. The clarification in NPROF is because occasionally there are named associate professor positions.  In any case, I don't see a sign of a named position here.  (But note that I'm also on the keep !vote side, for other reasons.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you for explaining the difference. In that case, my opinion is "weaker than very weak keep", so I will strike out my comment and hopefully someone can find some more useful sources. All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:07, 6 August 2022 (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.