Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hansanarayan Bhattacharya


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 19:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hansanarayan Bhattacharya

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article has only one reference, which is apparently to the book of the subject. This means that, technically speaking, this is an unsourced BLP. I tried to find sources myself, but search in English does not give anything significant. May be a Bengali speaker could have more luck. Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the article fails WP:BLP; if the decision is keep or no consensus, reliable sources must be added to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Subject lacks any kind of significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Qualifies on WP:AUTHOR ("The person is regarded as an important figure OR is widely cited by peers or successors.") Bhattacharya's widely held and archived work is expansively cited across decades in Bengali literature.Page 153, Page 15, Page 17, Page 55, Page 321, Page 3, Page 19, 324, 365, Page 60, Page 311, 322, 324, 325, 326, 341, Page 38, Page 229, Page 228,, Page 19, Page 8, Page 286, 399, Page 487, Page 160 and many more like these... Wikipedia articles like Chhinnamasta reference the work of the author. If anyone's interested in reading his work, you can check out various of his books archived at the Indian Government's Digital Library of India (maintained by the Indian Institute of Science).. Lourdes  17:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. After the edits by Lourdes I believe that the article passes WP:N.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per article improvements & new sourcing. However, the last sentences has a bad case of overcite. Perhaps it could be corrected, by moving some refs into Further reading or similar. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right . I don't want to lose the sources (really had to work double time to search them out), at the same time the way it looks is exactly how you describe it. Any suggestions are welcome. Lourdes  13:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Spot-checking the references did not find non-trivial coverage of the subject, required for WP:GNG, and even the 20-reference overkill for the claim that he has been widely cited does not come close to what would be needed for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, would you check the subject's notability on AUTHOR rather than GNG or PROF, none which I've referred to? Also please note the nominator has themselves changed their !vote to keep and confirmed the subject's notability (presumably on Author). Thanks. Lourdes  01:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Article was improved with reliable sources. Revision required at last paragraph. Jessie1979 (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * [Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 21:34, 13 November 2016 (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.