Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaman Seecoomar


 * 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   delete. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Judaman Seecoomar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Very longstanding issues with the article. Clearly does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. Appears to have taught school for a little while, finished his PhD on his deathbed, and published a book for which no notability is asserted. The only reference is an obituary. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete – No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008  ( talk ) 11:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak keep. This seems to be one of a number of Guyanese-related AfDs which the nominator has posted fairly rapidly in the wake of WP:Articles for deletion/Dennis Adonis, some of which seem to have suffered slightly from haste. In this case, schoolteaching seems not to have been done just for "a little while" but to have been his main adult career (not that the schoolteaching seems to have much relevance to his notability), and the PhD was finished and the book based on it published several years before his death - hew was, in fact, finishing a second book at the time of his death (and the books do seem to be the main claim to notability. The obituary used as a reference (which I added to the article a year or so back) is from The Guardian - and if, as in this case, an obituary in a major newspaper is more than a couple of paragraphs, that in itself is quite a strong indicator of likely notability. There are also some strong indications (for instance, this review of the second book in a Guyanese newspaper) of the books getting substantial notice in Guyana - considering the apparent difficulty of finding Guyanese sources online (and consequent systemic bias), I would tend to consider the obituary and the book review taken together as just about enough to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PWilkinson (talk • contribs) 20:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I have supported keeping most of the related AfD nominations, but I do not support this one. While we extend a considerable tolerance to relatively poorly sourced natural from countries where we have difficult getting the  sort of good sources we hope for, this is not unlimited. In this case, the career seems to indicate that there are not likely to be any good sources, whether the career were in Guyana our anywhere else. I think the relevant rule is NOT MEMORIAL.  DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Moments ago I voted 'Keep' on the Jagdish Rai Singh AfD on the basis of the Toronto Public Library (a pretty massive one) retaining multiple copies of his different works; a similar search there for Judaman Seecoomar reveals only one work. I would like to imagine that he's notable (even if only in Guyana), but the article is nearly useless at present and nothing would be lost in seeing it go. Pax 02:03, 11 February 2015 (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.