Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananda Lal


 * 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. Comments in favor of keep are well thought out, rationale, and have put forth multiple reliable secondary and independent sources. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ananda Lal

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

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 several books including The Oxford Companion to India Theatre (which was reviewed in Comparative Drama), I would suggest that the subject is likely to be notable. They are described here as "one of Kolkata’s most prominent theatrepersons", and 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)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:03, 28 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 . Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * 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 here ("the publishing event of the year") and 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. 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 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.