Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arti Dhand

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. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arti Dhand[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics. Neelix (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has written a bit and answered a reporter's question but I don't think he's written enough or received enough substantial coverage in reliable indpendent sources to warrant inclusion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article has remained an orphan for a very long time - over three years now - but it appears, as an associate professor, she had already accomplished far, far more than, say, this associate professor in another part of the world: Shanta Rani Sharma. It seems whoever created this article just never got round to entering details in the 'personal life and education' and 'references' sections which were there originally. However, Amazon does list her book which was, as the artcle says, a 'manuscript under review' when the article was created viz. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0791471403/ref=rdr_ext_tmb - and she had written other stuff at the time as well. Perhaps she has added to that list. Tricky one! I have not done a Google search, so I am withholding my !Vote--Zananiri (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- wide coverage of her book (410 copies in World Cat; reviews in three peer-reviewed journals) plus the important university w/ tenure puts her strongly and highly above the bar. Remember the study of religion is not a highly cited field with many electronic sources. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to WorldCat at the moment. Would you be willing to provide citations for the three reviews? Neelix (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! They are History of Religions, v49 n4 (May 2010): 421-423, Journal of Asian Studies, v68 n4 (Nov., 2009): 1333-1335, International Journal of Hindu Studies, v12 n3 (Dec., 2008): 331-332. Even if one hasn't heard of the particular journals (as someone not in Asian studies or religious studies might not), note that the first two are at volumes 49 and 68 respectively, suggesting long-established journals (as does their presence in JSTOR). A search through AfDs over the past year has seen book holding counts become more and more important for evaluating scholars in the humanities and social sciences' notability and 410 is significantly over the typical bar (100 has appeared to be borderline and 250 and above has generally gone with a definite keep). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - I agree with Michael Scott Cuthbert. She certainly seems to have done a lot of work in her field: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/43749125/arti-dhand. I am looking into this and may add more information later. I also think that User:Candleabracadabra, who has opted for deletion, might have looked at the following site when looking for sources, as he refers to her as 'he' and the site, citing an interview, also refers to a male professor by the name of Arti Dhand. I would be sceptical, too, after reading that, as I am not familiar with a male professor called Arti Dhand and I could make little sense of it: http://www.fwbo-files.com/the-name.htm - --Zananiri (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Michael Scott Cuthbert. As I noted during contesting prod subject is surely a notable scholar in Canada in her subject. The Legend of Zorro 12:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Following my previous comments, I have had a look at quite a few Google links relating to the subject and have added some information about her in the article. I think she easily passes both WP:ACAD and WP:PROF and notabilty per WP:GNG is not an issue.--Zananiri (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2013 (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.