Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldev Raj Gupta (3rd 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   keep. As refs have been found and added to the article, many of the delete !votes' foundation has been undermined. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Baldev Raj Gupta
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unsourced BLP. Lacks clear notability. A search for sources found nothing. Previous AFD in 2008 closed as no consensus, and it hasn't been improved since then, so I think it's due another look. Michig (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Vejvančický (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Vejvančický (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources can be found and added to the article to verify that the individual meets the notability guidelines as established at WP:PROF. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient publication to show he;s an expert in the field. His English language books are held in as many WorldCat libraries  as would be expected for the topi, the US being very backwards in Indology. "Research in Indian linguistics" in 48, Indian linguistics : Punjabi Tamil phonology in 34, Multilingual issues in J & K's Punjabi literature in 23 (J&K=Jammu and Kashmir).     DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment (to DGG) Fair play, it can be difficult to address notability issues with some scholarly articles as the coverage is not presented in traditional manners such as news hits and profiles; however, how do we reflect the information you've presented above within the article itself so that notability is apparent to those who read the article? It would be nice to avoid a fourth AfD in a few months over the same issue. Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 15:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:PROVEIT, the burden to add sources is on those wishing to maintain article content. No references = fails WP:V & WP:BIO. Jeepday (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep according to researches of DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete. This is an unsourced WP:BLP article.  If it remains so then it shall be removed.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 08:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not sufficient to simply assert notability in the AFD discussion if actual sources aren't added to the article; notability is about the presence of sources, not whether the person met a generic checklist of accomplishments. If there isn't at least one genuine reliable source in the article by close, delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * DGG has shown that there are sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC).
 * I don't see any, just a statement that his publications exist in several libraries.--Michig (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not enough to "show that there are sources" in the AFD discussion, either, if those sources aren't added to the article itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here: whether sources exist and whether those sources confer notability. DGG has shown that the sources exist. About notability I am less sure and defer to those with more knowledge of Indian philology than myself. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC).


 * Keep His entry in the Who's who of Indian Writers, 1999: A-M published by Sahitya Akademi is sufficient to source the article and establish notability per WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. Abecedare (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Abecedare. An entry in Sahitya Akademi's who's who is enough to establish notability.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. The source found convinces me that he is sufficiently notable. Thanks for your efforts Abecedare.--Michig (talk) 07:30, 13 February 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.