Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Bharti

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. The collective impression from this discussion is that the author falls short of notability. While her work has been recognized, there not yet the depth or breadth of coverage to satisfy WP:Author or the GNG. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Bharti[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO by a few miles or so. ∯WBG^converse 13:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom except the "few miles" part. I'd say a few light-years. Massive fail of even basic notability. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 16:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This book from a university press has significant coverage, for one. Let's discuss this respectfully rather than by using silly, marginally insulting, hyperbole about miles and light-years. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any other source, regrettably. ∯WBG^converse 17:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You will see a few more sources if you simply click on "books", "scholar" and "news" above, but with less coverage than the book that I linked. The subject may not quite make the notability bar, but she gets pretty damn close to it, so I'd like to be able to say that I'm surprised that two editors chose to belittle this Dalit feminist writer. Unfortunately I can't say that, because insults seem to be tolerated in AfD discussions when they are not elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, whilst I agree that Gn-Z11's taunt was needless; miles short is quite commonly used to represent a TOOSOON situation.

It appears that an analysis of the sources is necessary:-

1) GScholar is pretty much worthless to evaluate anyone in these areas. High citation-count certainly proves the subject to be notable but an absence does not prove to the contrary.

2) The news-section gives me 7 hits:-

(a) Bhadas4media is not remotely reliable. Neither is The Citizen; which seems to have published a press-release.

(b) There is a RSN consensus that Scroll.in is an unreliable source and in addition, there's quite much haziness about their broader journalistic practices.

(c) The Indian express source is reliable but name-drops her as a panelist of a part. section over a lit-fest.

(d)The Wire has been deemed to be primarily unreliable for it's non-distinguishing between objective reporting; editorial-reporting and opinion-columns.

(d)The Independent Article takes a byte from her and devotes a single line.

3) The books section gives me 3 hits:-

(a) The one you mention.

(b) Another one that mentions a poem by her in a footnote and nothing else about her.

(c) And, the last which yet devotes a single line in a footnote and mentions her efforts in recovering the literary works of a part. writer.

Barring the one you mention; it's pretty much nothing and even with that one; I am hardly convinced. Incidentally; that book mentions lots of authors, in a very-similar fashion.

∯WBG^converse 19:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mention of Google Scholar was nothing about citations, but about sources about the subject, just the same as the book and news sources are. As I said, the subject may not be notable, but should be given proper consideration in this discussion, just the same as a male Brahmin would, rather than being dismissed with such insults. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Male brahmin; be very careful about what you say and what not......I don't like the casteist implications and I will be alerting you about the DS; at any case. ∯WBG^converse 19:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. If you don't like the implications of your insult then you shouldn't have made it in the first place. No deletion discussion should start with a statement that a subject that has several reliable sources in the article, and at least one better one available from the spoon-fed links elsewhere provided by the nomination process, fails notability guidelines "by a few miles or so". Your comment that "miles short is quite commonly used" in deletion discussions only underlines my point that such insults seem to be allowed in deletion discussions when they shouldn't be. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content and not on contributor (and the motivations). I don't take mentions in footnotes of books or any mention in sources that have been deemed to be unreliable by a RSN consensus, to be any meaningful coverage. ∯WBG^converse 04:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for sheer lack of WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as the book found by Phil Bridger, I have also found Dalit Studies, published by Duke University Press, which also has significant discussion of Bharti's work [1]. Not all of it is visible in this Google Books preview - the first result I see for her name starts "Bharti further suggests ...", and follows an omitted page. Visible discussion is on 3 pages of the book. I have also found two theses listed on WorldCat - "We fight!" Dalit feminist writing : analysis of a Hindi short story by Anita Bharti, a Lizenziatsarbeit from the Universität Zürich in 2015 [2], and Dalit Feminism and the Problematization of Patriarchy and Gender A Reading of Selected Short Stories by Urmila Pawar and Anita Bharti, unfortunately published by Lambert Academic Publishing [3] - but both those theses indicate that Bharti's work is being studied in universities. It would be useful to have a list of Bharti's published works in the article, to help in finding reviews. I think the heading "Literacy work" is meant to be Literary work, as the title underneath appears to translate as "Social Revolutionary: Gabdu Ram Balmiki". Other titles mentioned in sources include Samkaleen Narivaad Aur Dalit Stree Ka Pratirodh (Contemporary feminism and the resistance of Dalit women), a collection of short stories called Ek The Kotevalee, and a book of poetry she edited, Yathastithi se Takraate Hue Dalit Stree Jeewan se Judi Kavitaayein. It may be possible to find reviews, though probably easier with the titles in their original script. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at these mentions, it pretty clearly is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it doesn’t matter what book she wrote, the person herself clearly lacks notability as of now. That article is dire.Trillfendi (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Laura R. Brueck book is indeed a reasonable source, but it's not a great one. It's the only one that even comes close, and that's not enough. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.