Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divya Dwivedi

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 no consensus. Well anyway, no clear consensus as you could make a case for a weak keep. If editors feel she should be covered within her book's article, that's an editorial discussion Star Mississippi 01:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Dwivedi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article was created by a sockpuppet. The article also does not meet any criteria from WP:NACADEMIC. References are either book review or tabloids or interviews. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Philosophy, and Delhi. Skynxnex (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, the statement that the "article was created by a sockpuppet" is unsupported and comes from an editor that has already been warned for his disruptive editing on topics related to India, shedding doubts on the neutrality of this process. Now, the key criterion for academics is the "Average Professor Test". In that regard, Dwivedi passes in my view, notably with interventions high profile, quality media venues like France Culture, le Monde, Liberation, the Wire, ... Since there is a general public demand, i see no reason to delete the page. Dockabo (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete associate professor isn't notable, I can only find copies of the books she's written, not reviews of them or any sort of critical discussion about them. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*:*Comment Along with the professor, she is also the a Notable author, and she has written the book notable book named Gandhi and Philosophy: On Theological Anti-politics. 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC) - sock strike - Beccaynr (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Book reviews are in the article, e.g. for Gandhi and Philosophy Book Review: Gandhi as Chrysalis for a New Philosophy (The Wire), Second Thoughts (Open Magazine), Bending the binary (Indian Express). Beccaynr (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC) There are four grafs of secondary context and commentary about her and her career in the Los Angeles Review of Books in 2020 that precede an interview. Further coverage of Ghandi and Philosophy is available in the article from The Indian Express and Deccan Herald, and the Deccan Herald includes further biographical and career information about her. There is also a book review from Frontline/The Hindu, a book review from The Hindu, and a book review from Economic and Political Weekly [1] in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment @User:Beccaynr I completely agree with your words. 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC) - sock strike - Beccaynr (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gandhi and Philosophy: On Theological Anti-politics co-authored with Shaj Mohan is notable but Shaj Mohan page needs to be deleted as well because it was also created by a sock and that subject is known only for this particulare book. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC - there is coverage of her and her career over time that is separate from the notable book. In addition to sources noted in my comment above, there is also: Gandhi and the Resurrection of Philosophy (The Wire, 2019), Divya Dwivedi pledges support for research scholar protesting against university (Mathrubhumi, 2021), Cargo Cult Democracy: Interview with the philosopher Divya Dwivedi on democracy, caste, and the future of India (Iranian Labour News Agency, 2022, preceded by secondary content about her and her career). The article can be further developed with a less WP:UNDUE focus on the notable book. Beccaynr (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The book is notable and has its own page, however its authors are not notable. 103.240.204.243 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page is mainly a promotional fancruft. Subject fails WP:BLP1E. 103.240.204.243 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Unesco Director speaking about Dwivedi https://twitter.com/genegalitefr/status/1298515523878236160?s=46&t=9sU3TWSv8fdU6_HVC48LgQ Jean-Luc Nancy on Divya Dwivedi https://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/articles/on-freuds-group-psychology-a-debate-j-l-nancy-d-dwivedi-s-benvenuto/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamranbaradaran (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Only known for a single book. Mukt (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Secondary context from a 2022 interview in Le Monde adds further support (in addition to other sources noted in this discussion and the article) that beyond the book, her biography, and career generally, she is also noted for being the editor and co-founder of the multilingual journal Philosophy World Democracy. Beccaynr (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Only her co-authored book is notable here. Orientls (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As far as I can determine, there are two claims to notability for the subject:

As co-author of Gandhi and Philosophy: On Theological Anti-politics, which has been widely reviewed.
As a public intellectual esp. for claims about origins of Hinduism (originally in a TV interview; later expanded into a cover story for The Caravan), which generated significant media attention in India (eg, [2], [3]) and abroad (eg, 1, 2).

In addition, the subject has edited several books published by reputable academic presses, although I haven't found high-quality reviews for them. Overall, I'd say that the subject just about clears the WP:NPROF/WP:NAUTHOR/WP:GNG bar, and the second claim to notability means that the bio cannot be simply subsumed in the Gandhi and Philosophy: On Theological Anti-politics article.

PS: The article history shows considerable (rival) socking activity and even this AFD has seen !votes by sock, anon, and resurrected accounts. It is likely that the article (which I haven't read in toto) itself needs a clean-up but I haven't let that affect my evaluation of notability, which is at issue here. If an experienced editor wishes to draft-ify the page in order to perform that clean-up, I wouldn't be opposed. Abecedare (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given Beccaynr's improvements to the article since its nomination. The article has undergone significant pruning over the past few weeks. Reading over some of the edits to the article that have since been removed, it sounds like her work on Gandhi and caste hit a political nerve that has upset some people. Not all criticisms of this article are based on her criticism of Indian society (there is still room for improvement of this article) but I think the article has been a target of attacks in the past. Also, while we sometimes delete articles created by sockpuppets when they are the only contributor to a page, this article doesn't qualify for a CSD G5 and I think its creator is now irrelevant to this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Wikipedia's guideline says that one cannot become notable by doing only one notable work this Case is WP:BLP1E. D 🐕 B 🦇K🐞 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC) - sock strike - Beccaynr (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As said, the book is notable but interviews and trivial coverage concerning the main subject are not significant enough to meet WP:GNG. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Liz here. Beccaynr's updates have significantly improved the article. Also, Liz's comment on this article being a target of attacks in the past is very relevant as the subject seems to be facing recent threats and attacks. There is a recent petition signed by some of the most popular philosophers in the subject's domain expressing solidarity with Divya Dwivedi. The news of the petition has been reported in multiple places. [4] [5] Since the sockpuppet argument doesn't stand anymore, the only remaining argument for deletion is BLP1E. But that also doesn't survive close scrutiny. The subject is regarded as a leading thinker in her field by her peers. Some of the subject's claim to notability outside of her book has already been referenced by Beccaynr already. This is also reinforced by the above mentioned collective statement by prominent academics in her field, including Slavoj Žižek and Stuart Kauffman among others. The subject is clearly a prominent academic, and hence the article should be maintanined and further improved. Razzzor1234 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements performed recently. In general the person passes the GNG and ANYBIO. I put the COI tag as the author is blocked and the article needs rearrangement. 多少战场龙 (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2022 (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.