Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saros Cowasjee


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Saros Cowasjee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as clearing WP:AUTHOR. The only notability claim being made here is that he and his books exist, with no evidence of awards or distinctions that would clinch him as "inherently" notable -- but the sourcing isn't getting him over GNG, as one of the "references" is just a clarifying geographical note rather than an actual source; one is a (deadlinked) primary source profile on the website of his own (former?) employer, not notability-supporting media coverage; and the third is just a glancing namecheck of his existence as a giver of soundbite on one page of a book. This is not enough sourcing to get him over the sourceability-based inclusion bar, but nothing stated in the article body is significant enough to get him over the achievement-based inclusion bar either. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Improper citations used and not enough citations exist. If this person was a notable writer, there should be more info about him online. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR Peter303x (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources that I have cited in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have spent much of this morning finding sources for this, and have to stop now and get back to real life. One source that I haven't had time to use yet is this encyclopedia entry. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now cited that source. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. It should have been expected from the nominated form of the article that he would pass WP:AUTHOR: it claimed him as the author of over 20 books, from a time when this almost always meant traditionally-published books rather than self-published ones. Publication alone is not sufficient for notability; we also need attention to those publications in the form of reliable reviews. However, the nominator should have made an effort to look for those reviews (per WP:BEFORE) rather than basing the nomination statement purely on what was present in the article. has made that effort instead, and the article now clearly reflects the subject's notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ditto. Bondegezou (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per David Epstein. User:Bearcat habit of nominating articles that lack sourcing, without running WP:BEFORE searches on highly plausible subjects, like this writer, is verging on WP:DISRUPT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to quote WP:ATTP here: As well, be very careful about flinging around accusations of a nominator's or commenter's perceived failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found. Literally 90 per cent of all the work I do on Wikipedia at all is locating archival sources to repair and upgrade the referencing of inadequately sourced older articles, but just like everybody else I can only research in resources that I have access to: I can't dig into databases I don't have and/or can't get accounts with, or print-only books I don't have copies of, and on and so forth: I can only BEFORE in resources that I can access. So if you were able to find better sources than I was able to find, then bravo to you — but don't you fucking dare attack my basic competence as an editor. I do not have a "habit" of nominating articles without running BEFORE searches; I have a longstanding and conscientious practice of running BEFORE searches in the resources that are available to me, and then deciding the next step on the balance of what I was or wasn't able to find once I've run out of resources that are available to me. In actual point of fact, in the recent AFDs where you and I have both commented (e.g. Michael Barnes) you've agreed with my evaluation of the sources far more often than not. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nearly all of the sources that I added are freely available to anyone with Internet access, and I found all of them by simply following the search links spoon-fed by the nomination process. Only two or three required me to log in to my university library account to access the full text. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet far more than three of them are to sources that can't be read at all without purchasing access from JSTOR. Which is not to deprecate their validity as sources, of course, but certainly vitiates the argument that my inability to afford the cost of finding or reading them somehow constitutes evidence of my negligence. That was my point all along: if you can get into JSTOR to find journal articles that support the notability of a writer much better than anything that turned up in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand database did, then by all means, get into JSTOR and fill your boots, but you don't get to criticize me for not having equivalent access to JSTOR. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Only two of the sources link to JSTOR, and in one of those cases you can see that it is a review of one of Cowasjee's books from the publicly displayed title. Please stop digging rather than embarrass yourself further by making obvious incorrect claims, and learn that the first places to look for sources are in books and academic papers, rather than in primary sources such as the news articles indexed by ProQuest. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I apologize if I misspoke by lumping all six under JSTOR alone, but six of them, not two, link to either JSTOR or JSTOR-equivalent databases that require the reader to pay at least $25 to actually read the full source. But as always, there is a big difference between sources that actually support notability and sources that just glancingly namecheck the subject's existence in the process of being fundamentally about something or someone else — so the mere fact that a source comes up as a hit on a person's name in a search is not automatically evidence of notability in and of itself, if I can't verify how much it does or doesn't actually say about him. If you can, great, but it doesn't make me negligent if I don't have the same level of access to a paid-access resource.
 * Secondly, journalistic reportage most certainly is a useful place to search for notability-assisting coverage of people — news coverage is not bad or invalid primary sourcing, but is a perfectly legitimate and entirely valid type of secondary sourcing that Wikipedia considers to be among the best sources we can use for many topics. Newspapers have book review sections; newspapers report the shortlists and winners of major literary awards as news; newspapers do feature profiles of writers and analysis of literary trends and on and so forth. Journalism may not always be the whole story in the case of a person whose notability derives primarily from specialist academic writing, but it is a perfectly useful and valid and notability-supporting place to search for a person who writes general market literature such as novels or short stories that could be expected to have potentially been reviewed by literary critics in the likes of The Globe and Mail or The New York Times.
 * Thirdly, I don't make incorrect claims.
 * Again, you found other sources. That's great, and it changes things. But your ability to find other sources does not make me an incompetent or negligent or irresponsible editor who deserves to be criticized or reprimanded: ad hominem attacks to the person are not appropriate behaviour on Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, one does not need subscription-level access to JSTOR to search it and to determine which of the search results are substantial independently-published book reviews of the subject's work. All it takes is a certain lack of laziness. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Never using a source until I've actually been able to read the whole thing is literally the opposite of laziness — it is in fact the very definition of conscientious and responsible editing. Resting on a source just because of its headline, while not actually reading the whole thing first, is what lazy editors do. Just stop the damn personal attacks already, and keep this discussion on the article where it belongs. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as WP:AUTHOR; his top book is held by 800 libraries; this is indicative of a widely read author. Plenty of reviews are available, i.e.: A Raj Quartet. Cuthbertson, Guy. English Literature in Transition, 1880-1920, Jan 01, 2006; Vol. 49, No. 1, p. 76-79. Reviews the book "A Raj Collection," edited by Saros Cowasjee. And more. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2019 (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.