Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nandini Sahu


 * 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. Sources weren't' found to rise to WP:GNG, nor was evidence presented of notability under WP:AUTHOR j⚛e deckertalk 01:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Nandini Sahu

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable poet/author, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. There are a very few sources which mention subject's name but no significant coverage in any. undefined — Bill william compton Talk   11:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Srong keep: sorry, you are compeletely wrong, subject well estabilhes the WP:notability.I think you did not properly search the sources. Please it is better you reverse your proposed deletion request. Here are WP:reliable sources as,

1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7.

There are lot of more, later I am going to improve and wikify the article.Justice007 (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, notability must be asserted. None of the above mentioned sources establish the notability of subject; ignou.ac.in is a faculty profile, having a Google Books entry is not a proof of notability, and reliability of merinews.com is itself questionable. You have given only one reliable and independent link which is of The Times of India but please check before making a claim, Nandini Sahu in this article is some poor, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya alumni, other backward class, Kanpur resident who got a good rank in Indian Institute of Technology Joint Entrance Examination in 2012 not about this 39 years old poet. Please read Wikipedia guideline to identify reliable sources. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   13:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No significant coverage, all the single para sources are from book publishers and fairs. Merinews is not a reliable source, the ToI article mentions a different person by the same name, and online links to books are obviously not sufficient. In the absence of passing either WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG this ought to be deleted. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Google Books (3 of the sources) cannot and does not have an editorial board due to its inherent nature. The source from the Times of India is inconsistent with the information from this article (from a different area and studies the sciences) and most likely about a different person, "Nandini, a native of a village in Akbarpur in Kanpur Dehat has also been a student of Navodaya Vidyalaya in Faizabad ... She gives credit of her success to teachers of Navodaya Vidyalaya who taught her the basics of science to crack JEE." The reliability of merinews.com is questionable as previously mentioned (I was able to find multiple grammatical errors throughout the site). Another source is directly from the University she works at. The Syndic Journal is written, compiled, and maintained by only one person. The only source I could find on the article which comes close to establishing notability is All About Book Publishing (which is still pushing it considering the amount of weasel words). As such, in my judgement it does not pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG -Bgmur (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to be fair, google books reviews and in the books foreword written by academics are reliable source, do not impose wrong interpretations of the policies. Subject is obviously notable and passes all policies. Policy does not state spicific numbers/members of the editrorial board. Anyhow, even these sources establish the notability of the subject, this and that, and here, though there are more. I consider editors accessment poor and non-sense weak opinion. Please do not preach me the policies.Justice007 (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to the closing administrator


 * If you want the article to be kept you need to find reliable sources, not absurd statements calling other editors views as nonsense, especially when the best source you point to is a user submissions aggregator.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You are an administator, would you please clarify in the exact concept of "reliable sources". As the policies that I know and understand, for establishing notability, there is needed at least one reliable source, is that not visible in the sources?. You are rejecting editorial board, google books, academics reviews, what is then other reliable source??.Justice007 (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Do we realy understand that Wikipedia is not a democracy?. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To Justice007, STOP RETALIATION and ATTACKING my contributions for agreeing with deletion of Nandini Sahu's article. Your action amounts to HARASEMENT. Immediately after I posted my agreement (above) with deletion of Nandini Sahu's article you went after an article (Seyamak R. Payek)‎ I had authored and contibuted to and attacked it with frivilous lack of notability. You should be banned from Wikipedia.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per spiffs comments above. --regentspark (comment) 21:49, 27 August 2012 (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.