Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shantala Shivalingappa


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Andrew Base (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Shantala Shivalingappa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not sure if this is a notable person. Only claim to fame is that "She is known for playing Solveig in Irina Brook's Peer Gynt" but one (minor) part is not sufficient. Otherwise, it all seems to be inherited notabilty (her guru, where she studied, "worked with prestigious artists", who directed her etc). Depsite "Her performances have been praised throughout the world", we have only two reviews from the US from 2010 and 2011. Way beyond my area of expertise, so brought to AfD. Emeraude (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Her dance has been detailed in the Washington Post, NY Times, New Yorker, The Nation, Financial Times, The Independent, Office of the Arts, Harvard University, University of Massachusetts Amherst Fine Arts Centre, sfgate.com, villagevoice.com, The Guardian, lemonde.fr, Yale News, Les Voix Du Monde. Changing from Weak Keep to Strong Keep.  scope_creep Talk  11:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep based on (a very small selection here)
 * Detailed review in SFGate, Shantala Shivalingappa review: Solo Allan Ulrich 18 April 2013
 * Detailed review in New Yorker, 3 November 2011
 * Detailed review in NYTimes, 2013, NYTimes 2011 , NYTimes 2008
 * Detailed review in The Nation, Dec 2014
 * BriefEarly review of performance in 2001 India Today International magazine Vol 26, Pg 91 Kuchipudi dancer Shantala Shivalingappa plays Ophelia in Peter Brook's The Tragedy of Hamlet SHE WAS ONLY 14 WHEN chosen to play Miranda in Peter Brook's production of The Tempest. Now, 10 years later, Shantala Shivalingappa is ...,
 * From what I notice, Shantala Shivalingappa has done participated in some well known dance performances and there is coverage all the way from 1992 to present. Although I understand some of them are a bit brief, however it is very rare for someone to be covered so consistently across 2 decades. I think this is definitely notable.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "across 2 decades"? Naughty use of language when you mean 12 years! But well done; I said when nominating this was not my area of expertise so I can accept there is coverage across a significant period of time. If that can be added to the article to show she is notable I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. Emeraude (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually it's across 2 decades because the earliest mention is in 1998 in Kultur Chronik The delicate Shantala Shivalingappa, who came as a guest to Wuppertal from India, is deployed with great restraint but otherwise firmly integrated in the ensemble. A tiny head movement at the start of one solo and some much slowed-down... Then 2001 (India Today), 2002 (Cahiers élisabéthains Shantala Shivalingappa's characterisation of Ophelia was also merely satisfactory. Since Laertes had been cut, she never had the chance to demonstrate Ophelia's wit or playfulness and, again, we were not especially interested in her or her..., 2003 (Hamlet in Pieces Shakespeare Revisited by Peter Brook, Robert Lepage and Robert Wilson) Shantala Shivalingappa sits on the floor as the mad Ophelia, with Toshi Tsuchitori seated directly in front of her accompanying her speech-song. Even this actual' insanity is evidently a piece of theatre. And think back to the pattern of action at, 2004 (Talking to the Audience: Shakespeare, Performance, Self) Still more frail is Shantala Shivalingappa in Brook's production, who speaks rather than sings Ophelia's songs over Tsuchitori's underscoring. Ophelia's madness cannot, it seems, be expressed as performance, despite the fact that perform with... Of course, not every one of these sources are detailed reviews. But given that she has been covered regularly over so many years, it is highly plausible that there could be more sources. which are possibly not accessibly online. In any case, I think the 5 or 6 reviews I linked in my comment should be enough for notability.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Btw, it's perfectly OK to bring articles to AFD :) In fact, were it not for AFD, perhaps this article would have languished in this state for don't know how many years. I will try to improve it by the end of this week.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A wider spread than you originally gave, but still stretching the use of "across two decades". I'm just after a bit more precision numerically. "Across two decades" could be applied to a career running from 31 December 1989 to 1 January 1990, though 31 December 1999 to 1 January 2000 would be an even more impressive "across two centuries". Be that as it may, well done on securing wider sources and thanks for your anticipated improvements to the article. Emeraude (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. 2000 and 1999 are in the same century. 2000 and 2001 you could go even further and say two milleniums... :)  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:40, 4 December 2019 (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.