Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hrangthan Chhungi

Hrangthan Chhungi

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

Contested prod. Non-notable scholar. Fails WP:PROF StAnselm (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At first sight the article would seem to have a few independent sources. I haven't dug into this subject yet, but it would help if the nominator could explain how those sources fail to meet our notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the links are just to things Chhungi has written, but these are not "highly cited" in the sense of Note 1. The three other footnotes are: a quotation in a news report, a "welcome aboard" note in an in-house newsletter and the mention of her name on an organizational website. None of these remotely approach notability. StAnselm (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. The statements in the article are all well-referenced, but only make the following claims:

She is a member of the India Evangelical Lutheran Church (1)
She has a doctorate (2,4)
She is or has been treasurer of the Society for Biblical Studies in India (3)
She is or has been secretary of one of the National Council of Churches in India committees (3)
She has written four articles (5, 6, 7, 8)

This is completely insufficient for notability as an academic under WP:Prof (academics usually have doctorates, and usually write dozens of papers). More generally, under WP:Notability, there is no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (in contrast, for example, to D. S. Amalorpavadass, who did receive such coverage). To put it another way, there is no evidence given of anyone outside the Society for Biblical Studies in India and the National Council of Churches writing about this person.

Under WP:Notability (people), there is no evidence of "a notable award or honor" (doctorates are not notable), or of making "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record." Senior churchmen (such as Samineni Arulappa) are generally notable, as are people who found new religious movements (such as Geevarghese Mar Ivanios), or people who have written multiple widely read books, but nothing notable in the Wikipedia sense is included in this article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On checking, it seems the original author has created a large number of articles on Indian Christian theologians -- a surprisingly large number, given the relatively small size of the Christian community in India. It would probably help if the author would draw up some guidelines as to what makes an Indian Christian theologian notable, get agreement on those guidelines, and then help assess the articles. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- I would have thought she was just about notable. I would also contest the remarks about the size of the Christian community in India. It is true they are only 2% or so of the population, but that does not prevent there being over 30 million Christians. That is more than some European countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how she can be notable. What criteria of notability do you think she meets?
My comment on population was meant to indicate that, just by going on population, the number of notable Indian Christian theologians I would expect would be about the same as, say, the number of notable French Christian theologians. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do we take a policy not to allow Women Theologians on Wikipedia. --Pavani (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do indeed have female theologians on Wikipedia. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, for example, is a female theologian. She was the first woman elected as president of the Society of Biblical Literature, a major society. Her book In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins has 386 citations on Google Scholar, and her other books are also widely cited. She is notable. I don't believe, on the basis of information presented so far, that Hrangthan Chhungi is notable, but I'm sure we would all be very, very happy if you presented some evidence of notability. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Comme on folks, she's basically a treasurer of some organization, even had she been the president, the article would still fail to show she'd pass the notability test. It does not suffice to show one can find secondary sources, notability worth of inclusion in an encyclopedia should be what is required. Imagine, I would have to go there and be the treasurer or the secretary of that organization or even found my own since that would make me enough notable? That, of course, would be ridiculous. -RobertMel (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]