Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sreyash Sarkar


 * 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. Consensus for keep. (non-admin closure)  scope_creep Talk  16:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Sreyash Sarkar

 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable per WP:BIO. Possibly too soon. References mix of blogs, dud refs, creative writing events pages, own work. Fails WP:SIGCOV  scope_creep Talk  22:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep, though the notability is tenuous. Suggesting to improve references. Srsgd (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Improving the references. Just a question: does this news article fall under WP:SIGCOV?  Rbhu23 (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep but the validity of this person's notability needs to be addressed.Raydsgf (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Hi Folks. It is BLP article that is covered by WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. The article needs secondary sources to confirm, WP:V tha the subject is notable.  scope_creep Talk  12:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Note: the article was reviewed by five different people at ACPERM and it was rejected by all of them. The lede author then moved it from ACPERM to mainspace, even though it was rejected.  scope_creep Talk  19:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, but this citation looks WP:RS and contains a screenful of text specifically about him.
 * (I agree with other contributors about the state of the sourcing, which could use a good cleanup.) Narky Blert (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep referring to this citation. But the article needs a lot of cleanups. Specifically in the bio section. Agree with Narky Blert. Sfuelte (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments: The first references I checked (and deleted) was to a school with nothing about the author. The second reference "I checked" is to Poetry Pacific. The sites states: '...the most beautiful place to create your poetry blog--meaning Self-published. I hope I have better luck going forward.  Otr500 (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually the reference that was deleted byOtr500, contains references to the person. this citation mentions him as an achiever in the EXCELLENCE / ACHIEVEMENTS section. He studied here, most probably. Thus, the reference is relevant.Srsgd (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: JUST because the subject studied there does not mean we can advertise an entire web page expecting someone to read an entire article. Link to the relevant section in the reference. The notability on the subject as a poet should mean there are sources for reviews (critics) on "poems". I see poems:The Optical Symphony, The Cage, The Macramé of Carnal Waves, and Malaise but the reference is a review (The Galway Review) actually on the author and just listing the poems. That does, however, give evidence that the poems have received recognition. Otr500 (talk)


 * Weak keep: but a note to the article editors (some appearing new and even thus far single purpose accounts) to provide against future AFD's notability needs to be clearly established by sources and not just by the number of sources on the article. Otr500 (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Guys, this is also a revision of the organization of the subject's published works: wherein there is a need for separation of the review magazines from the other publications. Also, since there are multiple magazines publishing the same poems, so organising based on poems should be done.Raydsgf (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree so am trying to integrate review magazines in the "Publications" section, that are really just references, into the article. Also, "IF" the subject is a noted poet, then it makes no sense at all that somewhere there would not be links to any poems establishing such notability as a poet, right? Otr500 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, considering this citation, also taking into account review magazines like Galway Review + Red River Review etc.But, the article needs proper structure. Agree with Raydsgf & Otr500 YuNX21 (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The Galway Review is a top flight reference. I think it can now be close a keep, which I do shortly if the references are in the article.  scope_creep Talk  16:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Galway Review was in there from the beginning. I have wasted everybodies time. I will close it now. Nomination Withdrawn  scope_creep Talk  16:06, 21 December 2018 (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.