Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susmita Basu Majumdar

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 no consensus. While Thincat 's opinion must be discounted because it conflicts with our notability guidelines, Feanor0 does provide valid reasons to keep. Sandstein 16:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susmita Basu Majumdar[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)

I hate to be that guy, because Dr Majumdar seems to be an interesting person, and it's a well-done short article... but I don't think the coverage of her personally is anywhere close to sufficient. The references are a bunch of incidental mentions, and by my searches no single research item or publication has generated the kind of coverage that might make the originator notable. - Please do prove me wrong, because I'd rather have any amount of articles about scientist poets than wrestling crap. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure how to address this. There is coverage of her in the Bengali press (e.g. see Kuntak Chattopadhyay (30 July 2017). "আদিগঙ্গা থেকে মিলল ঘড়া ভর্তি মোহর, তারপর..." Ananda Bazar Patrika.). There's references to her work by others (commentaries and criticisms found on scholar.google.com). She has published books and articles. Feanor0 (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That newspaper item is about the coin trove and mentions her incidentally (as does ref #4 in the article). The only coverage of her music/poetry given in the article is similarly short mention, not an in-depth treatment. Can you show some of those? Admittedly I'm unlikely to find non-English ones myself. - That she has published books and articles does not matter in itself, sorry. The relevant guidelines are at WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ARTIST. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...sadly. Her work seems interesting and I would have loved to keep this article. Unfortunately there is simply not enough coverage. In the CV, I wasn't able to find something particularly notable to justify WP:ACADEMIC. I checked the citations on google scholar but didn't find much (though it could be due to the nature of the field, which doesn't attract that many citations). I didn't see any fellowships or any awards. If there is any significant coverage about her research, I would be willing to reconsider.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't understand folks who !vote to delete articles they think are worth keeping. The notability guidelines were written as suggestions about which articles might best be created, not as rules as to what ought to be deleted. If having an article improves Wikipedia then, as a matter of policy, it should be kept. This one is an improvement. No benefit comes from hiding it away so only administrators can look at it. Of course our readers should be allowed to read about interesting and remarkable people. Thincat (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. Actually, no. The notability guidelines are there to make sure that only topics with sufficient independent coverage are included - that being Wikipedia's function: to summarize existing in-depth coverage. Interesting or not, sympathetic or not, does not enter into it; we require a critical mass of existing material before an article can be created. As an unbiased editor in this project, you are especially asked to apply these thresholds on topics that appeal to you personally. The other way lies One Article Per Pokemon. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, wholly entitled to your opinion but that is not what WP:Notability says. Thincat (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2018 (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.