Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nandini Sahu (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Notability clearly established. SouthernNights (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Nandini Sahu
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I still don't believe that this article passes threshold of WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Article lacks reliable, independent sources, and I was unable to find such sources. Atlantic Publisher reference doesn't cover the subject significantly and Ignou.ac.in is a profile page. Rest sources have questionable reliability. undefined — Bill william compton Talk   17:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: notability is not observed. There is not any reliable reference which shows the notability. Jussychoulex (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment
 * The same editor after sometime has nominated the article for deletion again, while first nomination for deletion was also mistaken, as I discussed on the talk page of Joe Decker as this and that. Joe Decker excepted notability of the subject referring this. Justice007 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Why do you always think the worst of other people? "I do not want to reveal that but voting only by editors from (or belong to) that part of the world, does not satisfy me", I'm not sure what you are implying here. I still have concerns about the notability of the subject. I hold no animosity towards anyone here. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   00:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep A simple Google search reveals that Sahu is a notable poet in the Indian subcontinent. Perhaps we could add more sources to help buttress the statements in the article? I hope this helps! With regards, AnupamTalk 04:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you care to present some objective evidence to back up your assertion? undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   13:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - added ref. Bill, why didn't you add WP Poetry tag before AfDing? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure how this is relevant to the ongoing debate? undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   05:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: As the discussion on talk page of Joe Decker and cited sources establish the notability.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.111.238 (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This is the only contribution of this IP. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   05:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I don't really see much evidence that anything has changed since the first AfD, 6 months ago. Sources present in article seem mostly to be self-published or sourced to an online zine of unknown credibility. Hence, fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO. Needless to say, as associate prof with minimal citations listed in Gscholar no notability is demonstrated under WP:PROF. Ray  Talk 04:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just referring the rules without going through the sources is not the correct move. The subject is notable, having not sources online, does not mean, subject fails notability. Subject has been interviewed by "Times of India", That I cannot find online, but it is mentioned to other sites as well. I have just added to the article this source that shows the notability too.Justice007 (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, the problem seems to be with the article's composition and lack of attention pre-AfD, not with the subject's actual notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep-Notability is very clear, academic google books, and other sources are enough to be notable.Aanapk (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2013 (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.