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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  21:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anju Chaudhuri[edit]

Anju Chaudhuri (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)

Fails WP:NARTIST. Few of the claims are sourced and is approaching spam level wording. DrStrauss talk 14:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as the mentioned WP:ARTIST is in fact satisfied by the Victoria and Albert Museum along with the apparent national museum in her own country. The source for the former is absolutely enough and there are certainly chances sources can be found as by WP:Before; one currently found is a 1968 source. SwisterTwister talk 15:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED. DrStrauss talk 16:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the criteria of the notability guideline that you invoke in your nomination statement is "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums", which is nothing to do with WP:NOTINHERITED. We already have a source saying that Chaudhuri is represented in the collection of one of the most notable museums in the world, which goes some way towards meeting that criterion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have cleaned up the promotional wording. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have further cleaned up the article to ensure compliance with WP:BLP (diff). DrStrauss talk 21:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, probably speedy keep. The specific qualification for notability was present at the time of nomination--for those who thing the GNG is more important than NCREATIVE, it's a sort of shorthand, for it will always be the case that paintings in major museums are critically discussed in publications. The articles was not even particularly spammy for articles of this type---most articles on contemporary artists are much more flowery. If one is going to nominate articles for deletion, it helps to know what to expect from such articles -- and to know the guidelines. We probably have several thousand much more appropriate for deletion, on grounds of both dubious notability, and actually strong promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is a bad argument. DrStrauss talk 21:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, but it wasn't the argument made by DGG. Can you please reply to the arguments made rather than throw irrelevent straw-man links at the discussion like WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:OTHERSTUFF. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

most articles on contemporary artists are much more flowery = WP:OTHERSTUFF. Not a strawman. DrStrauss talk 07:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was ready to support, but could find very few serious references to her and her work. I checked the V&A collection and they do indeed have one of her works. WP:ARTIST says you need several museums though. I do not see notability being met by either mentions in RS or her being in multiple collections.96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There are plenty of mentions in reliable sources: just click on the word "books" in the links at the top of this nomination to see some of them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I clicked on books, and yes there are a couple decent refs. However the majority of the sources there are very minor, along the lines of "Illustrations by Anju Chaudhuri. Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company". The few items that are longer are only snipept view so I can't asses them.96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been unable to assess them either, so haven't given a "keep" or "delete" opinion. How does your inability to assess them lead to a "delete"? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The references we can't read might be excellent, but who knows? God might exist too, but I tend to not believe that either.96.127.242.251 (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd prefer not to get into a discussion about the existence of God, except to say that She or He or she or he is clearly notable despite the doubt about existence, but you make my point here about this topic by saying that we don't know whether these sources are excellent or not, so how can those of us who can't read them say either "keep" or "delete" on their basis? The sources clearly exist, so it needs someone who can read the full text to identify how much coverage there is. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If we went by the "maybe there are good references but we cannot read them, so we should keep" argument, we would not be able to delete anything.96.127.242.251 (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The V&A is only one of several museums that have collected her work, so the subject meets WP:ARTIST. I noticed that sometimes here name is spelled differently, for example, the National Gallery of Modern Art gives her name as Chaudhry, Anju. See http://ngmaindia.gov.in/collections-artist.asp?strLetter=C Mduvekot (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The source given by Mduvekot confirms a pass of WP:ARTIST. I know that we only have two museums so far, but, given their stature, that's far better than being in the permanent collection of the "several" museums asked for by that guideline that are merely notable, rather than two of the most notable museums in the world. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've already given my support for keep, but as I continue to look for sources, I'm becoming suspicious of some of the claims made elsewhere about museum collections. For example, in the french version of the article there is a claim about being in the collection of the Musee d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris that I can't verify even though the museum has their collection online and one about the Musée national d'Art moderne that is incorrect; the Kandinsky library holdings of the museum include a catalogue of her work, her artwork is not in the museum collection. Other collections may also need some more checking. Mduvekot (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2017 (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.