Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananda Lal

:{{la|Ananda Lal}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananda Lal}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Ananda Lal}})

Fails WP:PROF Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Perhaps the nominator could expand on their deletion rationale, indicating efforts made to find sources and to establish notability? As the author of [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22ananda%20lal%22&hl=en&prmd=io&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp several books] including The Oxford Companion to India Theatre (which was [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-137921072.html reviewed in Comparative Drama]), I would suggest that the subject is likely to be notable. They are described [http://www.indianexpress.com/news/drama-all-around-full-house-heavy-security-greet-pak-group/411731/0 here] as "one of Kolkata’s most prominent theatrepersons", and [http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_dylan-songs-in-ju-literature-syllabus_1171276 this] confirms that they were a professor and head of the English department at Jadavpore University.--Michig (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Article needs extensive cleanup. Then let's see what we have left VASterling (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Whether the subject is likely to be notable or not, is not up for debate. The article is not supported by the most basic of requirements for BLP: reliable, verifiable sources. If none can be found, the page must be deleted. The indianexpress.com source (Michig) only fleeting mentions the subject - it's not about him.--Kudpung (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

:What is not reliable or verifiable about the Indian Express, dnaindia.com and Comparative Drama. Granted we don't have much in the way of significant coverage at present, but surely these establish that the subject is notable, and can satisfy WP:V with some trimming to the article?--Michig (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:*This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of evidence that he passes WP:PROF or WP:GNG. However, I'm willing to change my mind if some better sources can be found and added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Are we really doubting the judgement of the Oxford University Press when they choose who should to edit their companion to the theatre of a sixth of the world's population? The whole thrust of our policies and notability guidelines is to follow the judgement of reliable sources, such as the OUP, of who is notable rather than make our own subjective decisions. For what it's worth, there's an academic review of Lal's magnum opus at {{doi|10.1162/dram.2006.50.4.183}}. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - It's not that difficult to get a book published by OUP, and it does not a notable person make. Was the book at a least a roaring best seller and altered the way one sixth of the world's population think? --Kudpung (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Notability must be documented; here it is not.

:This isn't a case of "getting a boiok published" by the OUP, but of being chosen to edit a general reference work on a wide-ranging subject. You can read about the impact of the book and its author [http://www.hindu.com/fr/2004/10/15/stories/2004101502590400.htm here] ("the publishing event of the year") and [http://www.telegraphindia.com/1041009/asp/calcutta/story_3854308.asp here] ("a Professor of English who may go down in history as Indian theatre's greatest protector"). Phil Bridger (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

::The academic review you cite is behind a paywall - but you knew that. The Hindu ref is OK (why didn't you insert it in the article? - don't worry, it's done.) The article in The Telegraph carries a very thin mention of Lal and a subjective comment about him, and does not stand up in the court of BLP; it's exactly the kind of source we don't want to use for BLPs. I have absolutely no doubt that Dr Lal is a very prominent academic - that's not the issue here; the issue is proving the most likely very accurate claims made in the Wikipedia article - 'Verifiability not truth..blah..bla', and I see no reason to make an exception, and open a possible floodgate of WP:OTHERSTUFF claims. --Kudpung (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to be a recognized authority on Indian culture. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC).
• Delete-Poorly referenced article and non notable person.There has to be reliable souces to establish notability.The article lacks that.This article should be deleted without any further delay.Doesn't adhere to wiki policy of Biography of living persons.Non notable non significant.The comments above by other editors Phil bridger, Kudpung also indicate at the non notability of the subject.--Poet009 (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The editor of a major reference work of international stature like an Oxford Companion is notable , even if they did nothing else significant. The work has additional reviews, including a 3 p review in The drama review : TDR from MIT Press. [http://www.worldcat.org/title/review-of-the-oxford-companion-to-indian-theatre/oclc/485145732&referer=brief_results WorldCat]. She also prepared a concise version Theatres of India : a concise companion from OUP. And there's a good deal more--in addition to the works cited in the article, see [But there is more, in addition to the work cited in the article, see [http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3A%22Lal%2C+Ananda%22&fq=&dblist=638&start=11&qt=next_page the author listing in WorldCat] DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 5 October 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.