Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banarsi Prasad Saxena


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Banarsi Prasad Saxena

 * – ( View AfD View log )

AND

This article has been tagged for sources and notability for over three years, but in that time nothing has been done to show notability. My searches have failed to produce much that could be considered as establishing notability. For example, the first twenty Google hits were all Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, blog posts, Appearances of the name in lists, passing mentions in pages about other subjects, and an acknowledgement (saying "My thanks are due to Dr. Banarsi Prasad Saxena for preparing the index and making improvements in the manuscript"). A PROD was disputed, the reason given being "probably notable per Gbooks results that cite it and discuss it". However, "probably" notable is not good enough, and none of the Google books hits I checked "discussed" him: every one of them merely mentioned him once. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication that this meets WP:PROF.Griswaldo (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Keep per WP:PROF criteria #1: # The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.. Banarsi Prasad Saxena seems to be a widely quoted scholar:, , , ; I personally would give it the benefit of the doubt therefore. -- Cycl o pia  talk  15:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to full keep after Msrasnw sourcing that seems to consolidate WP:PROF criteria #1 as being met. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Counting mentions (which are by no means of a significant amount in this case) is meaningless. Do you have any understanding of this field or of what the importance of his name appearing in those texts is?  Criteria 1 is met when you can prove "significant impact" not when you are guessing at it.Griswaldo (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not merely count mentions; read what I linked. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —--Misarxist 15:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —--Misarxist 15:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  —--Misarxist 15:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My research comes up the same as JamesBWatson: Several things written or stated by this person, about something else; a couple of namechecks in lists of historians; and nothing at all about this person, documenting xyr life and works.  I note that everything that Cyclopia points to above falls into the first of those categories.  There's nothing &mdash; provided in the article or locatable &mdash; to build a biography with.  This person may well be a "known authority".  But that knowledge does not appear to have been written down and published, and is thus unverifiable.  Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think an alternative transliteration may help: Banarsi Prasad Saksena noted as one of the Historians of the 'Allahabad School' (the others being R.P. Tripathi and Beni Prasad). (Farhat Hasan in Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2 (May, 1995),  Reviewing  The New Cambridge History of India, 1.5- The Mughal Empire ) His magnum opus is B. P. Saksena, History of Shahjahan of Dihli (rev. ed. 1958, repr. 1962) is refered to in three cited sources as the key text. Seems sufficient other evidence under this name. - Domesticity and power in the early Mughal world by Ruby Lal p54 fn13 - mentions another work and a change to Saxena. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC))
 * &hellip; but it doesn't tell us one single verifiable piece of information about this person, and doesn't actually state anything about "a change to Saxena", merely about a convention that the author is going to use in citing a source by this person (about something else) further on in the book. Even the Hasan and other sources don't tell us something about this person, other than that xe is part of the "Allahabad school".  Where's a source that gives basic biographical facts about this person?  Where's an independent and reliable source that documents &mdash; say &mdash; this person's birthdate, place of residence, job, and lifetime accomplishments?  None of the footnotes, unadorned book citations, and incidental mentions so far mentioned (all of which are in the first two classes that I mentioned above) give any basic biographical facts that can be put into an encyclopaedia biography.  Uncle G (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think rather than not one single verifiable piece of information we have the following:
 * Names: Banarsi Prasad Saxena or'Banarsi Prasad Saksena
 * was a historian associated with Allahabad University
 * was part of the "Allahabad school"
 * awarded a PhD. by University of London, School of Oriental Studies in 1931
 * wrote important book ''Shah Jahan of Dilli run to several editions.
 * head of the department of history in University of Jodhpur
 * head of the department of history in University of Allahabad (retired pre 1967)
 * productive period (judged by publications - 1930s-1970s
 * not included in the article
 * we have him staying in Streatham till the end of the war (with Dr Streda)
 * his son being Radhey Shyam
 * This is not a lot it is true but it seems to me more than sufficient to establish verifiable notability. Professor Heramb Chaturvedi's ‘The Evolution of the Allahabad School of History (1912-1955 AD) (Revised to Emergence of Nationalist Historiography and the historians of Allahabad) sounds useful but sadly my library does not include it. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
 * You exemplify my point. You don't present, and don't have, a single source supporting items 5, 6, 7, and 8; and don't address any of the questions that I asked.  Indeed, you state explicitly that 8 is your own conclusion, not based upon sources but guessed by you yourself.  That's not writing based upon what is already documented by the world.  That's making biographical facts up. Uncle G (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * * Oh dear - I think I have added sources to the article for evertyhing except no.8. Which was on the basis of his having published work in the 30s 50s 60s 70s and it seems 80s even though one of the sources cited indicates he retired before 67 from Allahabad. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
 * * On his magnum opus we have three sources citing it as the "The best biography of Shah Jahan is Banarsi Prasad Saksena" "The Standard history in English is B.P.Saksena" "The best secondary source remains Banarsi Prasad Saksena, History of Shahjahan"
 * ^ http://www.answers.com/topic/shah-jahan Gale Encyclopedia of Biography: Shah Jahan
 * ^ Kalādarśana: American studies in the art of India By Joanna Gottfried Williams (p5"The Standard history in English is B.P.Saksena")
 * ^ Architecture of Mughal India, Part 1, Volume 4‎ - Page 346Catherine Ella Blanshard Asher - 1992 - 368 pages "The best secondary source remains Banarsi Prasad Saksena, History of Shahjahan"
 * * On head of history at Jodphur http://books.google.com/books?id=6VNXAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Banarsi+Prasad+Saksena%22+-inpublisher:icon&dq=%22Banarsi+Prasad+Saksena%22+-inpublisher:icon&lr=&as_brr=0&cd=66 is referenced to National Council of Educational Research and Training., 1964
 * * On head of history at Allahabad http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=%22Banarsi+Prasad+Saksena%22+-inpublisher%3Aicon+%22Hindu+Society%22&btnG=Search+Books#hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks:1&sa=X&ei=4ZEkTcmFBoOzhAfC3vzkAQ&ved=0CCcQBSgA&q=%22Banarsi+Prasad+Saxena%22+-inpublisher%3Aicon+%22Hindu+Society%22&spell=1&fp=fc8aae4abccfd483  Hindu society in the sixteenth century:with special reference to northern India Ashok Kumar Srivastava Milind, 1981
 * Is there a problem with these refs or is it that you want links to google books putting in? (Msrasnw (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC))


 * delete I can't see anything here that raises him above the level of a standard academic career.--Scott Mac 13:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Distinguished contributions as shown above, some time ago so not much web impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep clearly meets wp:prof. People in "standard academic careers" do not become heads of department at two universities, or write what becomes definitive books in their subject.  That sort of bio   =   an authority ion their field.    DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the article as it stands is sufficient both to provide some basic academic-biography detail about its subject and to show that he made an impact on the field as one of the principals of a major school of thought in Indian history. It would be unreasonable to expect him to satisfy 21st-century standards for academic citation counts etc in order to keep the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I expect that research would reveal that he wrote a variety of articles in his active life. It is however unreasonable to expect an article on a man active c1930-c1970 to have as detailed a biography as we would for a living and active historian.  The article has a reasonable list of footnotes.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2011 (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.