Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananta Mandal (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Evidence of substantive coverage in reliable sources has been shown, but the concerns over promotionalism are equally weighty. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Ananta Mandal
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Autobiography. Self promotion. There are refs in the article but most of them are just site name e.g. www.sdws.org, others (2-3 refs) are interview (primary). No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Didn't won any significant award or honor. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * This biography fails almost every criteria of notability, COI, promotional style. Just another author who did not bother to read wikipedia rules before publishing.SalomonSalmon (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. The links in "further reading", especially the Times of India online puff-piece, might take him past GNG. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw that but in my opinion that 2/3 coverage is not significant coverage. Newspaper/online news site always publish (promotional) news like that. The wiki article wholely written by the subject himself (ignoring all warning - see his talk page), there is good chance that those coverage are paid news or subject requested to write about him. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Owais Talk 00:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Self promotion. Coverage in the press is not serious criticism but absurdly incompetent. From the Times of India: "In all his works, he has used oil, acrylic and watercolour on canvas and paper". We're supposed to take that seriously? The Times of India, like many other indian media is a vehicle for advertising. They're not in the news business, they're in the advertising business. See https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/10/08/citizens-jain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs)
 * Strong Keep after viewing the image of his painting and reading the 2013 deletion attempt closed with the words "The result was keep. Sourcing concerns appear to have been remedied". Over eight years later the page still seems well sourced and obviously meets GNC and WP:ARTIST. I've edited the page for encyclopedic language and to remove promotional language. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC) Elemimele (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * weakish delete; I have no idea why the last AfD closed with the conclusion it did, as the conclusion didn't reflect the comments that led to it. The article is a problem because it's basically a string of awards none of which are verified, a situation that cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. Clearly Ananta Mandal is a successful professional artist of sufficient merit that the Times of India reports his exhibitions. But the requirements for notability are placed much higher than this: "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Although his works are good, they are not (yet) a significant monument; there is no statement that he's in the permanent collection of a notable gallery (let alone several), and I'm not sure the exhibitions in the India Times are major, significant ones (they look more like run-of-the-mill exhibitions). He's good, but he's not Monet. I think it's Too Soon.
 * Strong Keep - A notable artist, meets notability criteria notability criteria per sources available, see the media listed and press releases here. Also source examples that consist of significant coverage from reliable sources include:
 * Multifarious impressions Time of India
 * life in a metro The Pioneer
 * Painting his love Indian Express
 * Capturing landscapes on his canvas Times of India
 * Tales of transition DNA
 * ''Subject has several significant solo exhibition at Jehangir Art Gallery, Nehru Centre Art Gallery, Academy of Fine Arts, Kolkata "this all are reputed and major art gallery in India."
 * Significant award section - Bombay Art Society, AIFACS, Academy of Fine Arts, Kolkata, Government College of Art & Craft, San Diego Watercolor Society, Western Federation of Watercolor Society, this all are reputed art fraternity. include:Rich canvases saturate watercolor event Houston Chronicle, Waiting for the Morning, by Ananta Mandal of India. "subject own first place award from Watercolor Art Society-Houston, US" — From the all of existing sources does not indicate that the subject is not notable. RedRabbit7 (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One final relist. More than one grounds for deletion was raised (e.g. promotionalism beyond realm of being fixed), and some but not all sources have been disputed/discussed.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Elemimele. ~Yahya ( ✉ ) • 14:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Another relisting seems unneeded as consensus after two relistings was clear after RedRabbi7's well-researched comment. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I couldn't disagree more. Almost none of the factual claims are supported by credible source and there serious issues with failed verification. For example, 2017: Award from Northwest Watercolor Society is problematic, because it doesn't mention which award (the International Open Exhibition isn't really an award), there is no independent coverage. https://www.nwws.org/portals/0/PDFs/MayJune2012HotPress.pdf says he won the $507 Winsor and Newton Excellence Award - $507 Value in 2012. https://www.nwws.org/portals/0/PDFs/JulyAugust2017HotPress.pdf says he won the H. Q. Johnson Award at the 2017 Annual International Open Exhibition. Those are not  "notable awards". I would go so far as to say that they are very much NOT awards. These are competitions, where entrants must pay a fee to enter. The work is then offered for sale, and the organizer, like the NWWS receives a percentage of the sale price. Vexations (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Aside from the awards, does Wikipedia accept the The Times of India as a reputable source? I haven't checked, but if it does then this artist has notability and should have made relisting for a third time (are three policy?) unnecessary. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:TOI (no consensus and generally unreliable). Anyway, that is not significant coverage. Newspaper/online news site always publish (promotional) news like that. I also have serious concern about RedRabbi7, although my cu request was declined. Even though the person is from West Bengal, there is zero coverage about this person in Bengali language. The article (bn:অনন্ত মন্ডল) on bnwiki was deleted also for notability. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination &mdash; Al Riaz Uddin (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2021 (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.