Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajiv Lather (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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 04:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Rajiv Lather
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable. No additions to article since the last time it was put up for deletion in 2004. The comments at Talk:Haiku also say Rajiv Lather is non-notable. Jay (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —  Salih  ( talk ) 11:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I had previously (in 2004) argued for a keep, but since then our notability criteria have become clearer, and I don't think he makes the cut based on anything currently in the article. If he is more notable than the article currently suggests, then someone needs to edit it to demonstrate that. - Jmabel | Talk 17:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I had marked it for speedy deletion, I believe, as something utterly nonsensical.  A person's haiku have been published?  Well, that puts him in the company with some tens of thousands.  Is there any indication that this is a major poet?  No.  Is there indication that this is a well known poet?  (Are there any of such an age?)  Then there's this defense writing, which is unrelated and, again, without any indication of significance.  "I have written major arguments on the economy and many haikus about the human condition" sounds nice until I add "in spray paint on the walls of banks" after the first clause and "in bathroom stalls" after the second.  We have to have some indication of reception, effect, and reaction.  Publication is difficult, but not difficult enough to mean significance.  Geogre (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Frogpond is the main publication of the Haiku Society of America, which is significant enough for an article. Whether a regular contributor to such a journal is significant enough for Wikipedia, I couldn't say.  No vote at this time   Th e S te ve   07:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, it is. However, when we are talking about US haiku, we're in pretty thin air to begin with.  Getting published in a poetry journal is difficult, but it does not confer any other status.  Had this person been published in Poetry, he would still have been a singly published poet.  Again, very nice, but, again, not a sign of being a major poet.  The point is that we don't say, "As a freelance writer getting an article published in Newsweek warrants a biographical article in Wikipedia," and so we wouldn't say even getting published in a major poetry journal would.  Add to that that this is analagous to the equivalent of getting published in Mother Jones or Green Living rather than Newsweek, and the case gets weaker.  Writers self-promote because they have to.  This is promotion.  Hence, it violates the advertising clause of the deletion guideline.  Geogre (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2009 (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.