Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kedarnath Agarwal

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 of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 21:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Kedarnath Agarwal

This was tough. He may just be what the page says, but there isn't any verifiable way to check that. The external site isn't a secondary and his Google hits are nearly nil. Ste4k 21:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Difficult one. Very limited google result. Nothing on google books or google scholar. Only one very brief article about him on Factiva. Here it is (all of it):

Hindi poet dead. 24 June 2000

Press Trust of India (c) 2000 Asia Pulse Pte Limited

Banda, Jun 24 (PTI) Renowned Hindi poet and writer, Babu Kedarnath Agarwal, died here Thursday

at the age of 90 following protracted illness. Agarwal was honoured with prestigious Soviet

Land Nehru and Dr Mathili Saran Gupta awards. He is survived by a son and two daughters. Chief

Minister of northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh Ram Prakash Gupta said Agarwal's death had

caused a great loss to Hindi literature."

Difficult one but the Soviet Nehru award (which other notable and more verified Indian cultural types in wikipedia seemed to have) pushed me over the edge. I mean over to the keep side. Weak keep as if he's such an important poet, why so little coverage in India's substantial English language media and publishing sector? Bwithh 23:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Definitely notable, judging from this. I have expanded and copyedited the page, please take a look before voting. ImpuMozhi 01:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  Well, that's the one comprehensive webpage on the poet out there. The problem with that site or its owners "DOT COM SYSTEMS" is that it does not much apparent authority. So there's no "definitely" here. Bwithh 01:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  Do you suspect that that website is a sham / hoax? To what benefit? Why do you think so? I do get 756 hits for "Kedarnath Agarwal" and this is sizable, considering that he was a Nonagenarian, Uncontroversial, Non-English writer Based in Bucolic Banda. (me, I'm no mean poet myself!) ImpuMozhi 02:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying the website is a hoax! I'm saying its not authoritative in itself to really justify a "definitely notable" conclusion, particularly given the lack of other sources out there. (And by the way, of course there's a benefit to being suspicious of hoaxes - these happen all the time on wikipedia and are a serious threat to its ability to function!). (Funny how I'm having to justify my thoughts in this way even when I voting for keep!). And the google and factiva news and magazine result (which includes Indian newspapers and magazines such as The Hindu, The Hindustan Times, The Times of India and India Today - none of which have any mention of this poet) is not that impressive given,as I've said before, India's substantial English language news media sector. . Incidentally many of those 756 google hits are wikipedia ripoff sites or are talking about a movie producer, not a poet.(UTC)Bwithh 02:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:ImpuMozhi, WP:V and WP:RS are very clear in saying that truth isn't a sufficient criterion for inclusion. You don't have to doubt the veracity of an article to vote delete. It's only necessary to come to the conclusion that the available material is not enough to write an encyclopedic article about the subject. The best remedy against such an argument is to search for and provide more outside sources. ~ trialsanderrors 03:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per Bwithh. Call for others to provide more resources, as I got nothing. ~ trialsanderrors 02:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep One of the problems with Indian names is that they can be transliterated in different ways and thus, a straight google search is never helpful. Another unfortunate and unavoidable problem is that several famous people share the same name (esp. in North India) making Google test very difficult to validate. Coming to this nom, Kedarnath Agarwal has won the Sahitya Akademi award which is the most notable award (next only to Jnanpith Award). This info. is available on the Sahitya Akademi website itself [1] and other websites [2] as well - his name being spelt "Aggarwal." "Kedarnath Agrawal", another spelling gives some 125 google hits, almost all about this man and with mention in reputed newspapers and magazines such as The Hindu and Outlook. Hence, Strong Keep. --Gurubrahma 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Gurubrahma You need to look at the google hits carefully. There is more than one person with that name. The Hindu article you mention is about a Kedarnarth Agrawal organizing a yoga camp 6 years after the poet died. The Outlook mention is about the correct Kedarnarth but it is a web forum post by a reader not an article!. There also at least one businessman and one movie producer with a similar name. Noone is saying this poet doesn't exist, we're just wondering how strong his notability is. I'm not changing my vote from weak keep, as I still think this guy is notable for his awards but still concerned about his lack of press coverage. I tried a Factiva search for your alternative spelling and got 0 relevant hits. He does seem to be occasionally mentioned in the news media as in Frontline article where he gets a very quick mention in a long list of poets in an article about a more famous poet, but not very much at all. Anyway, my vote is still weak keep. Bwithh 17:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment by nominator. The problem here is verifiability. Please review sections regarding the reliability of resources. As a neutral third party I haven't any way of verifying any of the information on the page. Thanks. Ste4k 06:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if you feel that Government of India funded websites are unreliable. Aren't you being over the top when you say that you have no way of verifying any information? That he has won Sahitya Akademi award is verifiable. I'm definite that if someone is diligent enough to go through the 1000-odd Google hits for various spellings of his name, they'll find more info. I have shown that atleast some of the info is verifiable and that it is notable. If you feel that some info is not verifiable, either excise it from the article or better still, slap such info with {{fact}}. AFD is not and would not be the solution. --Gurubrahma 07:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you mean by "over the top". I have just reviewed the page again, and suggest if there are government agencies that provide funding that these agencies be referenced on the page. Any published mention of the awards should also be placed in the references. The problem here may be one of language as you suggest, but dilligence is the burden of the author rather than the reader. Thanks. Ste4k 11:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• May I point out, Ste4k, that on Wikipedia we are all simultaneously authors and readers. A quick look around the net about what the Sahitya Akademi is and who wins its awards might have been called for rather than an AfD. Then you, yourself, could have referenced the article. In future, why dont you try that? Also, when reading articles written about a cultural or political milieu with with you are unfamiliar, and where WP:BIAS might come into play, be very very careful about random prod-ing and AfDing. It just wastes everyone's time, otherwise. Hornplease 05:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Bwithh's Factiva results and Sahitya Akademi (the definitive source on who won its awards). Given the difficulties of Googling, the consilience of such evidence as I can find leads to suppose that the subject is notable. Reducing the content to a bald statement of dates, the mention of the Sahitya Akademi award and a bibliography would address all WP:V issues (which are separate from the keep/delete argument in this case). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per --Gurubrahma .A winner of prestigeous award .The low google hits is due to different spellings . Shyamsunder 11:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per GuruBrahma =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There's enough valid information to show that this guy has significance to more than just a handful of people. SilkTork 15:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Sahitya Akademi is a very prestigious award -- Lost 11:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, winner of the Sahity Akademi award. Hornplease 05:42, 7 July 2006 (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.