Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirti N. Chaudhuri
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. CitiCat ♫ 04:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kirti N. Chaudhuri
Fails WP:PROF. Does not really establish notability at all. While the existence of several of his books have been referenced, the article reads like a memoir and it is otherwise completely without WP:RS. Tagged for {{cleanup}} (and {{tone}}, {{notability}}, and {{sources}}), but an editor who appears to be the subject removed all the tags twice without fixing the problems. Evb-wiki 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- → AA (talk) — 16:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. -- → AA (talk) — 17:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as not-notable professor/not-notable in general. Plus there are no citations except to name his publications. —ScouterSig 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
*Delete. Cites the books, but not reviews and other reliable sources. Claims of notability appear to be hagiography. Bearian 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC) See below. Bearian 23:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Despite the unfortunate tone of the article, there are in fact sources for notability.AQccording to Book Review Index, "The Trading World Of Asia And The English East India Company 1660-1760." was reviewed in: Pacific Historical Review May 1983 p218, British Book News March 1982 p138, Times Literary Supplement July 25, 1980 p853, The Journal of Modern History Sept 1980 p506, Business History Review Summer 1980 p218, The Journal of Asian Studies Feb 1980 p388, Pacific Affairs Fall 1979 p500, Pacific Affairs Fall 1979 p500, The Journal of Economic History Sept 1979 p797, CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries March 1979 p123 -- 10 reviews, including TLS and Choice and the leading specialized journals in the subject. The other books have also been reviewed, as shown by the references in the article. That is enough for notability. Berian, you usually look more carefully. People, don't let the poor state of the article discourage examining it all the way to the bottom. We're judging the subject. DGG (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I call attention to the recent additions to the article in the last day--a determined effort, and it certainly found material. Perhaps too much detail is included now, but we can edit it later.DGG (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It appears to have been rescued per WP:HEY. Bearian 20:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I have been the primary contributor to the page, and clearly agree that I have added excessive detail. I look forward to the editing contributions of others and and fine tuning Kaye, James 16:18, 19 September 2007 (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.
