Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarat Kumar Rai


 * 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 no consensus. The primary reason for this discussion going the way it is, is because the article was significantly worked on during the 7 day period (not a bad thing at all). Because a number of comments came early before this happened, it is really difficult to establish where consensus sits, hence the determination in bold. Feel free to relist in the near future if you still believe the updated version needs a review through the AfD process. Daniel (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sarat Kumar Rai

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completely unsourced article about a non-notable person. A Google search brings up only mirror sites and another site which only has passing mention about a judgement in the court. Kpg jhp  jm  02:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  02:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

* Delete per nom. Unsourced article. RationalPuff (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: unsourced article that questionably would even meet the WP:GNG ~RAM (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep with change  Changing my vote. I did some further research and concluded that the subject meets the nobility criteria although may not be widely covered in the online sources. Here are some references . I'm going to add these citations to the article. The second para of the article is questionable though as I could not find any source to validate the claims. RationalPuff (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now deleted the questionable second para. Details Talk:Sarat_Kumar_Rai
 * , Just FYI, these two are the same source . Kpg  jhp  jm  14:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting. Amended now. RationalPuff (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Does the subject receive in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources? In-depth  means the subject receives comprehensive and thorough coverage. Significant means the subject receives more than routine coverage but is sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention. We all know what reliable, independent and secondary is. Multiple doesn't simply mean more than one, numerically. It actually means the subject receives separate coverage in more than one source as presented from different angles. If five reliable sources all report the same thing it is considered ONE source according to WP:GNG. The subject of this article fails WP:N, Wikipedia's notability guideline. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 17:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep- a short search found a mention in the Calcutta Review in 1944 and a possible mention by Gandhi in his autobiography. An significant coverage in page 26 of Ancient Bangladesh, a Study of the Archaeological Sources. A important note is that his palace is the Official Presidential residence in Northern Bangladesh, Uttara Ganabhaban.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I went through the links provided, there is a couple of mentions but not really Significant coverage for the first one . The second one could be significant but hard to judge by reading a few lines .  Kpg  jhp  jm  08:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As a member of the Bengal Legislative Council, he is presumed to be notable under WP:NPOL. The "completely unsourced" rationale for deletion no longer holds true, and a Google search is inadequate for a historical figure who flourished 1900-1946 in a part of the world where most sources could be expected to be in Bengali instead of English.
 * The encyclopedia article about him, added by, is in-depth significant coverage in a reliable and independent source. The paper by Sanjukta Datta is a second such source. Additional sources exist, such as , , and (in Bengali). is correct that multiple sources are generally expected, and that multiple stories sometimes count as only one source, but there is no requirement that sources have "different angles" on the subject, only that we neutrally represent however many significant viewpoints exist. The cases where multiple stories count as one are when one story (an Associated Press report, for example) is repeated in multiple newspapers, when several journals simultaneously publish articles relying on the same sources and restating the same information, or a series of articles by the same author or in the same periodical. None of those situations describe the varied sources under discussion here.
 * The text of the stub, little changed from when created a decade ago, sucks. It would be no great loss to the encyclopedia if the text were removed, but Afd is not cleanup, and there is no sound policy-based reason to delete the topic. He is best known today as co-founder of the Varendra Research Society in 1910 and the Varendra Research Museum in 1919. At the very least, his name is a plausible search term, and could be redirected to the museum as an alternative to deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment @Admin et al. I concur with that not all historical figures would have widespread coverage in the online medium today. The subject was the founder of the Varendra Research Museum considered to be the oldest museum in Bangladesh and the first museum to be established in East Bengal in 1910. It is evident from the citations in the multiple research publications even c.70yrs after his death and listing in the Banglapedia (a project funded by Bangladeshi Govt. and UNESCO) that the subject is notable. I agree, the content of the article was quite poor when it was flagged up for AfD and since has improved appropriately to meet the nobility criteria. RationalPuff (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2021 (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.