Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anuradha Bhattacharyya

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. Daniel (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anuradha Bhattacharyya[edit]

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

No independent reviews from RSs, and no evidence of notability as WP:PROF. No /wroldcat holding libraries for her fiction; only 1 library for her poetry. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Unfortunately, for Wiki standards, I found no good and convincing sources to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge deletion

To meet notability standards, many more publications, links and references as well as redirects to Wiki articles have been added. See edits to the page Anuradha Bhattacharyya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atul Bhattacharyya (talk • contribs) 20:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. David describes the proper assessment for an article like this and found results indicating an uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Whatever "redirects to Wiki articles" means, the article still hasn't changed perceptibly in terms of notability — I see insertion nothing particularly useful, just blogs, goodreads.com, and the publishers. DGG's original arguments provide sound reasoning for deletion. — Brianhe (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete Anuradha Bhattacharyya

The "redirects to Wiki articles" show why Anuradha Bhattacharyya is similar to many other Indian writers. Her books have been published by notable publishers in India. If she has not published her books with American or British publishers, that does not make her less notable.

Categories have also been added. Links to other articles (to legitimately remove 'orphan' tag) have also been added. Anuradha Bhattacharyya compares legitimately with Ananda Lal, Mahip Chadha, Vivekananda Jha etc. Writers Workshop books sell worldwide. Fifty Five Poems was mentioned by the Journal of Commonwealth Literature among its 'books received'. Knots was being sold by flipcart until stock lasted. Knots and The Road Taken have been reviewed by notable authors (what if the authors themselves are not listed in Wiki; I think they are also worth listing!). Her other publications have been cited by many scholars. Her PhD thesis is also listed in the Villanova list of publications.

Hope DGGwill remove 'deletion' message now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atul Bhattacharyya (talk • contribs) 15:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Comment. The points you're arguing are not relevant. This article will only be kept if notability according to one of the established WP guidelines can be demonstrated. Further, demonstration will require proof by legitimate sources – assertion and testimonial are not sufficient. WP:PROF will explain some of this in much better detail. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I have to admit I really wanted to say keep, but the article is too reliant on publications from blogspot and publications by the subject, and even the blogspot pieces seem to more often be publications by the subject. If we had actual reviews of her work published by people in India she might well make the cut for notable authors, but we do not at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have examined the sources now given in the article. They demonstrate that she was not only an academic but a widely published and appreciated writer. You can't expect the same level of English-language coverage for Indians as you would look for in connection with Americans.--Ipigott (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. She clearly does not qualify for an article under the guidelines at WP:ACADEMIC; she is an assistant professor, and a search at Google Scholar turned up absolutely nothing at all. The question is whether she qualifies under WP:AUTHOR. Several reviews are quoted, but they are not from the kind of sources that would give notability; they are from Amazon, and a blog, and what looks like a Facebook page. As for the language issue, since she writes in English, it is to be expected that she would receive coverage in English as well. At this point in her career she does not seem to have achieved the kind of recognition that we need for an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2015 (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.