Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vihang A Naik


 * 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 02:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Vihang A Naik

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

First of all - violation as per WP:YOURSELF. Author might be notable poet, but article contains tremendous WP:PEACOCK terms like India’s leading Indian English young poet and many many more. Article speaks nothing about poetry or work but how other people has praised him. The entire article is nothing more than WP:SPAM as it does more of advertisement than provide encyclopedic information. GP Pande  talk!  11:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I had actually speedied this before but that was challenged.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.   -- raven1977 (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Deletion sorting/India.   -- GP Pande   talk!  10:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete the article as it is now, certainly. This is a pretty ultimate peacock. I looked at the reviews: they're either blogs, or they are postings on a blog by the author of supposed reviews published elsewhere. And the tone, the phrases, brrr. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * After a couple of hours of editing: this guy is NOT a notable poet. He has three books whose value I cannot establish, the most recent one reviewed in questionable terms by people whose authority I cannot ascertain. All his articles are from a stint with a paper in the spring of 1997, and all the rest (but one) is in totally minor publications. After cutting the fluff, and seeing through the verbosity, there isn't much left, and there will be even less when I delete the irrelevant parts from the biography. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment since the reliable sources & real content all seem to be about his poem, not him, a move to Making a Poem & deletion of the extraneous content is probably the correct action. So Keep, without prejudice to editorial fixes needed. Wily D  10:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Very Weak keep after editing. But certainly not move to the title of one of his works which happens to be the only one yet translated into English. If he had only written (or published) one poem, then there might have been a reason for that, though even here I'd stick to the poet. DGG (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So--what to do with that long list of works he's published which are just non-notable, period? Delete it? The article is still much longer than subject's notability warrants (I also am not in favor of moving it to an article just for that one book, which, BTW, wasn't translated--he wrote it in English). Drmies (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the work is notable - or might get notable in future - be rest assured that some one would write about the "work" at that time. As of now full article has to go - as all are non-notable -- GP Pande  talk!  16:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable autobio. --Crusio (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2008 (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.