Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radhika Chandiramani


 * 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. improved the article following the delete votes, and there has been no dissent since she did so, so I think that the case for deletion is not clearly viable Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Radhika Chandiramani

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

DePRODed by creator. Concern was: ''The sources provided are either not reliable, or are book listings, or fleeting mentions. They do not add up to notability and I haven't found any others that do.'' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete unless much more suitable sources can be produced. At present, none of the references are independent sources. They all divide into two categories: (1) pages at www.tarshi.net (TARSHI was founded by Radhika Chandiramani) and (2) listings of articles and books where Radhika Chandiramani is an author or contributor, not articles or books about her. My own searches for better sources produced more of the same, plus this Wikipedia article and a Youtube video uploaded by a user called "TARSHIdelhi". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, per James. Patient Zerotalk 12:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can only agree with my esteemed colleagues above. It's possible that the organization itself has better sourcing than the founder, but we do not have an article about it - perhaps a well-sourced article about TARSHI might be worth a try, if the original editor is up for it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:AUTHOR, this Columbia University scholar who was awarded the 2003 Soros Reproductive Health and Rights Fellowship...
 * ...seems to be widely cited amongst peers including the likes of Harvard and UChicago and well-referenced in various libraries including the likes of Harvard, Cornell and Stanford.
 * ...seems to have created a well known work – her book Good times for everyone – which has been the primary subject of a few reliable sources.
 * It seems to me that the subject may qualify on WP:AUTHOR on multiple criteria. Pinging and  for their views. Thanks.  Lourdes  14:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Merely listing several search results is not really very helpful. Often, there is an impressive number of hits, but few or none of them are actually of any value in establishing notability: linking to three good references or citations is far more useful than linking to search results with 300 hits, but leaving the reader to search through them to see what they actually say. It is impossible to assess the value of citations from just a search result, especially in the case of Google Scholar, which is very indiscriminate, and includes all sorts of mentions of the person in question, sometimes including many which are not citations at all. For example, Google Scholar lists City Improbable: Writings (R/E), edited by Khushwant Singh, in a way which from just looking at the search results could be taken as a citation, but if you look at the book itself it turns out that in fact Radhika Chandiramani's name appears in the book as a contributor, not as the author of a cited source. However, I had a look at the links you provided, and tried checking a more or less random sample of the results. Doing so takes a surprisingly long time, as it is often necessary to follow several links, download a copy of a paper, then search it, and naturally some of the papers are not accessible, so time is wasted on those, as well as on listings which turn out not to be citations. Consequently, even after spending a considerable amount of time on the task, I had actually found only a small number of actual citations I had been able to read.


 * Sexuality, Health and Human Rights, by Sonia Corrêa, Rosalind Petchesky, and Richard Parker. In the acknowledgements there appears the follwing statement: "We also thank our colleagues in the Steering Committee and the Advisory Group for SPW, Amal Abd El- Hadi Abou Halika, Sunila Abeysekera, Dorothy Aken'Ova, Codou Bop, Gloria Careaga, Radhika Chandiramani, Adenike O. Esiet, Maria Luiza Heilborn, Gilbert Herdt, Jodi Jacobson, Rhoda Reddock, Ignacio Saiz, DAvid Satcher, and Michael Tan". That is the only mention of Radhika Chandiramani in the book.
 * Negotiating reproductive health needs in a conflict situation in the Kashmir Valley by Z. Khanday, says "Occasional technical support was also provided by Geetanjali Misra, CREA, New Delhi and Radhika Chandiramani, TARSHI, New Delhi."
 * Then there's La Prévention Du VIH Auprès Des Jeunes Au Malawi: Paralysie Et Potentiels De L'éducation Sexuelle, by Anaïs Bertrand-Dansereau, which says: "Des tels services sont disponibles pour une variété de sujets dans la plupart des pays industrialisés, et ont eu un succès certain ailleurs en Afrique ou en Asie (Chandiramani, 1998 ; Stadlcr et Hlongwa, 2002)." (My translation: "Such services are available for a variety of subjects in most industrialized countries, and have had some success elsewhere in Africa or Asia. (Chandiramani, 1998 ; Stadlcr et Hlongwa, 2002)." A citation, but a very minimal one.
 * Negotiating reproductive health needs in a conflict situation in the Kashmir Valley by Z. Khanday, says "Occasional technical support was also provided by Geetanjali Misra, CREA, New Delhi and Radhika Chandiramani, TARSHI, New Delhi." That is all.


 * How should we value such results as that? A glance at the search results you provided suggests a very widely cited author, but closer examination shows both that the number of citations is far smaller than first glance suggests, and also that (to judge from the sample I have been able to check) many of those citations are likely to be trivial. How much weight do we give to a fair number of trivial mentions?


 * I am unconvinced that a work's being included in the library of major universities is evidence of notability: if anything, that is actually less of an indication of notability than being included in lesser libraries, as such major university libraries tend to be very large, and therefore very inclusive. To give just two example, Cambridge University Library and the Bodleian Library at Oxford both include every work published in the United Kingdom, no matter how trivial or insignificant. I don't know whether such places as Harvard are as totally inclusive as that or not, but I am confident that they have large libraries which are therefore likely to be pretty inclusive. The library of a minor college or university, on the other hand, is likely to be much smaller, and therefore more selective in what it has. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time out for the detailed response on my point 1. Not many editors would take so much effort. I do apologize if this inconvenienced you. I want to request you to please provide a response on my 2nd point too – that of her book and the related coverage qualifying her on WP:AUTHOR#3. Thanks again. Lourdes  16:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Having written a book doesn't automatically make its author notable. Good Times for Everyone: Sexuality Questions, Feminist Answers is not exactly a best seller and IMO would fail WP:NBOOK.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I understand your view. The notability of the book is not in question here. And NBOOK is not the guideline I would prefer to quote (although the book also may qualify on NBOOK, contrary to what you mention, given that all NBOOK requires are two independent sources). I would request your views, as I suggested to James, on AUTHOR#3, which requires that the author's work or collective body of work should have been covered by multiple independent sources. For support, here are the sources:Tribune review of one book, One world advance review of one book, Scholastic review of second book, Tribune review of second book. Thanks again.  Lourdes  05:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , if you contend to know your way around our notability guidelines so well, may I respectfully suggest that you get on and make your vote without expecting  and me to make your mind up for you; we've made our votes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I came across wrongly. I would really want your view on AUTHOR#3, and whether the sources I have listed would qualify the subject on the said guidelines subpoint. It's not for anything else but to understand how the guideline would be interpreted by you. I reiterate my apology if the intent of my words has come out otherwise. Thanks. Lourdes  12:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject qualifies on the following three criteria:
 * 1) AUTHOR#1 - The subject is very well cited by peers. After my discussions with James above, I have been able to consolidate around 15 non-trivial citations of the author's work in international journals. I can get more if someone requires them. Also, if someone is interested, I can put it up here. I don't want to clog up the article by placing them there.
 * 2) AUTHOR#3 - The subject is well known for creating a collective body of work on research related to gender, sex and femininity. Additionally, as required by the notability guideline, the collective body of work has been the primary subject of multiple independent reliable sources..
 * 3) WP:NACADEMIC#2 - The subject has received two prestigious academic awards at an international level. The first is the Mailman Fellowship for Reproductive Rights (the 2003 Soros Reproductive Health and Rights Fellowship) from Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. The second is the MacArthur Fellowship from the MacArthur Foundation. These are noted as acceptable awards at WP:NACADEMIC..
 * As these sources were not there in the article when it was nominated, I have now added all these sources and some more reliable sources to the said article. Lourdes  04:58, 24 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.