Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nandini Sahu (3rd nomination)

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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nandini Sahu[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of User:Souravmishra26, who I have asked to come by and provide a rationale. In discussion with User:Kuyabribri on their talk page, Souravmishra26 indicated that their concerns included the quality of the references and the possible lack of notability for the subject. On the merits, I make no recommendation, but do note that some cleanup has taken place in the past 24 hours. Is it sufficient? I dunno, that's for y'all to sort out. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks Ultraexactz, I came across this article and since I read often on the field of Native American Literature and was looking through more articles to read- I was surprised on the content of this page. The RATIONALE behind it is that, it appears that all the content is person-promoted. There is no creditable authenticity. If you choose to believe the homepage of author, then its fine. (On a similar argument, I could create a webpage declaring I am a Fields Medal winner of or 2012. You have to choose to believe the accuracy). Here are my specific comments even after the cleanup has weeded many advertisement phrases:

The websites in the Reference list aren't creditable sources. They appear as regular blog sites, news sites . Information gleaned from blogposts and local newpapers doesn't establish the person is of national repute and recognition. In the Press Trust of India communications/newsletters, Ms. Nandini Sahu doesn't figure as a "writer, critic, poet". By virtues of lack of record, this appears to be a self-created page for publicity.
All that could be found is a blogspot reference - kavinandini.blogspot.com. But then this would entertain every WP/Blogger user to create his/her own Bio page. WIkipedia article biogrpahical entry as I believe has to have some universal unbiased contribution independent from sources which appear heavily reliant on the subject's own homepage/webpage and obscure newsfeeds.
It has been mentioned she got 2 medals - But there are no references to attest to the fact. The award section is completely bogus.
There are no references of which University she received her graduation diploma - an easy way to see the graduation year page and verify academic credibility.
All India Poetry Contest and Shiksha Ratna Purashkar aren't recognized awards - I can't find any reference to awardees or their lists.
Can't find the reference "A.C. Bradley Oxford Lectures On Poetry - Page 400 1999 "Also of Interest The Post-Colonial Space : Writing the Self and the Nation, Ed.Nandini Sahu". Can we trust it?
The below mentioned like appears more like a Personal Statement/ Statement of Purpose entry

"She received her Ph.D degree on Indian English poetry under the guidance of prof Niranjan Mohanty. She is also obtaining D.Litt, on Native American Literature.[7] She is serving as an associate professor of English language at the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi.[8] She has also attended national seminars."

List of Indian Poets and List of Indian writers lists honorable and distinguished people. I can attach screenshots of 5 emails sent to random people in the literary circle who have no clue who this person is?

BOTTOMLINE: Are we allowed to keep self-promoted biographies whose content is so dubious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souravmishra26 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks UltraExactZZ for completing this nomination. I just wanted to chime in here that I came across this article quite by accident on a routine check of Category:Proposed deletions needing attention. Souravmishra26 (talk · contribs) and I kind of got off on the wrong footing because s/he incorrectly interpreted my enforcement of the "no prod after AfD discussion" policy as my advocating keeping this article. I did remove some of the most blatantly promotional, WP:PEACOCK text from the article in an attempt to improve the article and address at least some of Souravmishra26's concerns before resorting to deletion, but ultimately I have no argument one way or the other on the merits of the deletion nomination. Cheers, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kuyabribri, Its alright. I don't think I have taken any offence. Maybe my style of writing is bit blunt. Apologies for that. No wrong footing from my side. :) Besides that, I find the basic premise of this article pretty tenuous. I generally would edit ( I do that on the fly), but I guess I have nothing else to this poorly written article. Thanks and cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souravmishra26 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kabirat (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the comments above seem to be mud-slinging. Regarding "academic credibility", there is no need for the article to say where the subject obtained her degree. This and this say she is an associate professor at IGNOU. Is there any reason to doubt it? Regarding her own page here, it is not self-published but I don't know what editorial control is exercised by the university. However, some things pointed out are strange. Oxford Lectures on Poetry by AC Bradley is a 1909 long out-of-copyright book that has been reprinted many times.[1] Originally it had 395 pages. I see a 1999 edition here but the Sahu reference is merely an "also of interest" on the back cover. The book obviously never had any content relating to the subject. I think the article needs careful review. However, the subject is a senior academic with published poetry which has been reviewed and well-received (though how independent the publishing and reviewing has been I cannot assess). A more objectively written and rigorously referenced article should then be considered for notability. Thincat (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - This is third time nomination for deletion, it is just personal motivation of a user, wikipedia should not bear this behaviour. Justice007 (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per balance of discussion and notes at last AfD which just happened a few months ago. There was a previous delete decision so it's not totally egregious, but still AfD is not a place where you can keep listing until the result your want is achieved. Leave the article and discuss again in a few years. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2013 (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.