Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malati Shendge

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. Tone 09:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malati Shendge[edit]

[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)

Not seeing a passage of WP:NACADEMIC. ∯WBG^converse 06:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 06:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 06:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- An output of 9 books over an academic career is probably enough to merit this. I suspect that citation indices will rate her only lowly, but that would be a result of the defects in the indices methodology and data collection. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wot? ∯WBG^converse 10:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book review by Florian Coulmas significantly analyses her work. Her views are significantly analysed in this book which is by a noted author and from a noted publisher. Then there's this too. Also, per Peterkingiron, the issue of systemic bias against oriental scholars should be considered. SD0001 (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have not read the third book; I have, FWIW.

Coulmas' review is quite poor:- ....It is perhaps the greatest defect of her book that she has little regard for earlier attempts at deciphering the Indus script....there is a body of knowledge about this writing system which deserves to be noted. That Shendge ignores Parpola’s book is a serious flaw.....Shendge’s (logographic) view is not new. Some other propositions of hers are, but they are rather implausible at that..... A particularly weak point of Shendge’s discussion is her inconsistent account of how the Indus script relates to the language of its designers and users.....I do not believe she has made her case, because what she is talking about is not decipherment. The trouble is that there is no proof.....In the end, we must ask whether Shendge carries our knowledge about this enigmatic script beyond what Parpola accomplished. The answer is that, while she brings to the field an admirable array of possible derivations of the Harappa seal signs, her claim that ‘the Indus script is decoded’ (p. 307) is not compelling.

What's your knowledge-set about the domain of Indology? Bias against oriental scholars, seriously?! ∯WBG^converse 11:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter whether the review is favourable or unfavourable. What matters is that the review is significant and detailed. Our guidelines require significant coverage, not necessarily significant positive coverage. SD0001 (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:NACADEMIC (which overrides GNG, explictly) does say that one/two review of one's work notability make? Also, reviews of a book in a journal are near-always detailed. ∯WBG^converse 05:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does NACADEMIC override GNG? It clearly states Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria. The 3 sources mentioned above, plus this one cited in the article is enough put it par the GNG threshold.

Also, reviews of a book in a journal are near-always detailed. So we should stop using them for assessing notability? I don't think so. SD0001 (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NACADEMIC was set up, so that every bits-and-pieces scholar, who made it to a couple of news-pieces were not in a contest of being standalone notable (see arguments by Tony et al).

The two reviews are significant coverage of her works, not her. My point was that reviews in journals are almost always detailed and almost-always ~half-a-page long, at least. Someone speaking of detailed reviews, for what is a fairly standard review, seem to be someone not much acquainted with them. ∯WBG^converse 06:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion only shows consensus that subjects meeting NACADEMIC but not GNG should be kept. It does not show consensus that subjects meeting GNG but not NACADEMIC should be deleted.

I take your point the review may not be detailed in the context of a typical journal review, though FWIW it is 3 pages long, not half a page. Regardless, it is detailed as far as meeting the WP requirement for significant coverage is concerned. SD0001 (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it is worth, in the source above, Coulmas calls her a "renowned Indologist".--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep The lack of biographical sources per WP:BLP is a bigger issue to me than notability. It's easy to verify that she has substantial publications in the area of the Harappan/Indus Valley civ as well as critical editions and other publications, but the one source in the article that appears biographical (rather than about her work) is unavailable to me- the indiaclub.com link is broken, and that seems to be a booksellers site rather than a reliable source. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This YouTube video contains an introduction to a talk by Prof. Shendge from All India Radio- that speaks to the notability issue, but beyond confirming her status as a scholar of ancient Indian history and language doesn't address the other BLP issues. --Spasemunki (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For academics, the primary thing we write about in articles is about their work, not about their personal life. So "biographical sources" aren't really required. SD0001 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found an additional source that speaks to the WP:BLP issue and tagged the remaining statements appropriately. I've changed my !vote to keep. I think the sources that we have establish 1) basic verifiability, and 2) her notability as an Indologist. To Winged Blades of Godric's point, Coulmas disagreeing with her conclusions doesn't invalidate the fact that someone whose ideas she cited responded in depth to her conclusions in a notable journal/publication and called her contribution to Harrapan/Indus studies significant. There's also this review of one of her earlier works which calls it significant in several places. --Spasemunki (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She used to work in BORI; sort of scratching each other's back .... ∯WBG^converse 07:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But to my other point, if her work was not notable, there would be no need for Coulmas to respond to it at all, and while he contests her conclusions he also asserts her contribution to the field- which was the original question regarding her notability. There are also two reviews in German on JSTOR I can't read- one by Wilhelm Rau and another by a Friedrich Wilhelm. Neither are lengthy, but do speak to her tenure in the field (first one is from 1969, second from 1979). I do think the relative publishing and marketing reach of Indian universities in the pre-Internet days is relevant to the systemic bias issue that others have noted in this discussion. --Spasemunki (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. We now have four reviews for three of her books listed in the article, near the minimum threshold for passing WP:AUTHOR for me but on the keep side of that threshold. It becomes clear from reading the reviews that she was a fringe theorist, and since she's used as a source in at least one other article (Harappan language) I think it's important to maintain this article and the identification of her as a fringe theorist so that when she is used as a source readers and editors can understand the nature of the source. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite agreeable. ∯WBG^converse 08:20, 30 October 2019 (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.