Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahua mukherjee

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. The question was "notability". The references cited by User:Dharmadhyaksha and User:Furius show subject's notability. These sources have been trusted by editors like User:David Eppstein. I am closing this as "kept" (non-admin closure) Tito☸Dutta 10:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahua mukherjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why is this person notable? Does this comply with WP:GNP?? Cheers AKS 07:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• She doesn't have to pass WP:GNP, but only WP:ARTIST. She has had a 30-year long career in reviving the extinct classical dance form of Gaudiya Nritya and has been documenting its history as well.[1][2][3][4]. More should probably be available in Bengali publications. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Sources mention her only in passing. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

But isn't there just too much of passing mention?[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. And all of those treat her as the expert in her field and the field itself is also notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comment above and other changes done to the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How would all the sourced info present in the article come from if she was mentioned only in passing? If she had only passing mention, our article would be "Mahua Mukherjee is dancer." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's possible to build up a quite extensive article from passing references - if you have enough of them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Three of those [12][13][14] are more than passing mentions. Those that are passing mentions (like this one [15]) tend to be a passing mention that she single handedly revived the dance form. Cf. William Kimber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furius (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 January 2014
• keep. Gryffindor (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and your reason? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. Unlike our typical YouTube personality, this person has actually accomplished something in the world, and the sources bear that out, even if not as exhaustively as we might like. Unfortunately, there's a fair bit of plugging going around in relation to her work, as is made clear in the history of Gaudiya Nritya and possibly Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gadurr. But that just means we need to keep an eye on the article, not that it needs to be deletion. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Despite the annoying mess at Gaudiya Nritya, I believe this person is fully notable. Dance reconstruction is a valid field of endeavour, and she is mentioned, though not always in complimentary terms, in a number of reliable scholarly sources, including four that I've just added to the Gaudiya Nritya page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources listed by Furius are enough to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG and the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" part of WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.