Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vageshwari Deswal

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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vageshwari Deswal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Citations included are just the articles written by the subject. After doing WP:BEFORE I'm convinced that the subject fails WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:Professor. Important and noted academic. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY, WP:NPROF, and WP:BASIC. This article has been revised and had sources added since the nomination, and notability appears to be sufficiently supported by Deswal regularly writing legal commentary published by The Economic Times and The Times of India, and having written for Yahoo News India, as well as being quoted for her expert opinion by The Quint, The Times of India, and ABC News (Australia), per criteria 7 of WP:NPROF and WP:BASIC. Her work has also been cited by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and the blog of the International Journal Of Advanced Legal Research. Deswal therefore appears to be "notably influential in the world of ideas." Beccaynr (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly does not pass WP:NSCHOLAR, not sure what the above editors are looking at. And WP:HEY would be appropriate, if there were in-depth references about the subject, but there aren't. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not the article it was when this nomination was made. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article has been updated with some very low-quality references, Amazon and annoucement/event pages. What is the purpose of that? Is that reference stacking? There is no standalone secondary refs that point to her being notable. Her Google Scholar entry is super low at [1] even for a lawyer. According to the university profile: [2] she is not a full professor, she is an Assistant professor. According to Academic ranks in India, it is the lowest rank on that scale. If the lassie got her PHD in 2007, she is likely to be at the very beginning of her career. For the two book entries, I can't locate any reviews. The other coverage for work outside academica, is mostly blogs, it is not under editorial control, with the occcasional real story, which is WP:SIGCOV. However, I don't see any secondary reporting that tells me she is notable. Essentially it an assitant professor who been asked to keep a blog and write a couple of stories. I think it too-low a bar for for me. scope_creep^Talk 15:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had added a source from the Delhi Journal of Contemporary Law that describes Deswal as an Associate Professor. Another editor had added a source from Bennett University describing Deswal as a "very eminent speaker and expert in the field" and a Professor. Additional research may be needed to confirm her exact current status, but it seems clear that she is no longer an Assistant Professor. Also, Deswal's legal commentary blog is published by major newspapers in India, and according to Muckrack, there are over 40 entries. It is true that there had been one reference to Amazon to verify one of her books, but it has been removed, and there is only one blog from an academic journal citing her work, as well as several news outlets, as noted above, quoting her as an expert. Beccaynr (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather go with the official university profile than the WP:PUFF both in the book and the Wikipedia article, in presenting her as a full professor, when she is not. scope_creep^Talk 18:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an official university website for the Delhi Journal of Contemporary Law, stating "Dr. Vageshwari Deswal, Associate Professor, Law Centre-II, University of Delhi," a 2020 notice from the university describing her as an Associate Professor, and a January 2021 article in The Quint describing her as an Associate Professor. Beccaynr (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. This has been improved significantly and, as a lawyer, she appears to pass my own standards and WP:GNG. As an academic, she would probably not pass because she's just an assistant professor. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bearian: perhaps you would expand your reasoning for a GNG pass? The article was just relisted for the 3rd or so time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per explained by Bearian meets WP:GNG now. Hulatam (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for UPE. MER-C 13:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. This article has been significantly improved and expanded by Bearian. Thanks for your works on this. VocalIndia (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep adequate citations now in article, ps wiki editors should not be calling an Indian associate professor a 'lassie' Kaybeesquared (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep adequate citations now in article, and also not impressed with above wiki editor calling an Indian associate professor a 'lassie'.Melissa Highton (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - recognised expert in her field. Stinglehammer (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per WP:HEY, she now passes WP:NPROF, and WP:BASIC. Ambrosiawater (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have continued to remove excess citations from the article, and based on what remains: The Times of India and The Economic Times are both major conventional news outlets in India that frequently publish Deswal's legal commentary, and describe her as an expert in her profile, i.e. "an academician, feminist and activist teaching at Faculty of Law, University of Delhi." The "frequency" is documented by MuckRack, which claims to automatically update online portfolios, so it offers at least an estimate of Deswal's publication rate. WP:PROF states that it is a guideline, not a rule, and "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (emphasis added, because in this instance, Deswal is frequently published in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area, and based on the subject matter and her profile, it appears to be an expert in women's rights issues). In addition, Deswal is quoted as an expert in The Quint, which appears to be a respected news outlet in India, and ABC News (Australia), which appears to be a public news outlet with editorial independence in Australia. Per WP:TOI, for The Times of India, there is currently "a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government," yet Deswal often appears as an expert calling for changes to the status quo. However, a review of some of Deswal's research suggests that she does work in conjunction with the government sometimes, including with regard to investigating acid violence attacks on women, as well as issues related to farmers and prison reform.

As to Deswal's academic title, there is an undated academic profile from her university found through a regular web search that states she has been teaching since 2000, and that she has 16 years of teaching experience at p.2, so it may be dated circa 2017 due to the dates of workshops listed at p. 4 - regardless, it states she is a Senior Assistant Professor, and by that time, she had also made several televised media appearances in addition to her written commentary noted above, which suggests more sources are WP:NPOSSIBLE to support her notability. As to her academic title, other sources offered in this discussion to support that she is currently an Associate Professor include a December 28, 2020 notice from the university, signed by Deswal, with the title "Associate Professor" and a January 2021 article in The Quint, a respected news organization. Her current title seems less relevant than her accomplishments, but given the disagreement over which sources to rely on and the implication that it may be relevant to her notability, I've included a more detailed analysis. Beccaynr (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was asked to comment further, I would add that she seems to be famous for being a public intellectual rather than an academic or lawyer, per se. George Conway is notable as a lawyer; his wife Kellyanne Conway is not famous as a lawyer but as an advisor the the Former Guy, and their daughter might be famous for being famous. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep A detailed discussion have already taken place and discussion may be closed.HariSinghw (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I think there's a case here for the subject as a public intellectual per WP:NPROF C7. It's very much verging on WP:TOOSOON, but the consistent record of blogging for the India Times organization (note that the Economic Times and Times of India appear to be co-owned, and certainly have a common blog platform) is something. The subject also appears to be frequently and somewhat substantially quoted on matters surrounding her legal expertise in India. The combination brings me to a (very) weak keep. The case would be more solid if there were more evidence of impact for the blog; I do note that it seems harder to find such evidence for a blog for the Economic/Times/ of India than in a comparable US-based publication. I agree with concerns of Aseleste about WP:REFBOMBing, but as usual, WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Failing to see the subject clearly qualifying WP:Academic Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:01, 24 March 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.