Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archishman Sarker

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. Discounting the opinions of sockpuppets, the consensus is that this bio should be deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archishman Sarker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable: does not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. It is also likely an autobiography given this was heavily edited from draft into article-space by an ip and then one user (I'm assuming they are the same person): this user has also uploaded multiple pictures of the person in question, claiming "own work". The main editor to the article has removed speedy deletion and PROD templates from the article, hence I am here stating the obvious. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 19:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 19:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I think it passes WP:ACADEMIC. See Criteria- (1)The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed; (2)The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. User talk:Milarepanoakhali 20:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He has published stuff but it seems that not a single person has cited his work. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

His Google Scholar profile shows zero "cited by", Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 12:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment added 07:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Citations work in a different way in the humanities unlike more market-oriented disciplines. It cannot be held as a disqualifier. User talk:Milarepanoakhali

• Delete Not notable, article heavily depend on primary source. Many attempt to remove AfD template. Zsohl^(Talk) 06:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BIO basic criteria: 'Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject'. User talk:Milarepanoakhali

• Keep Many reliable sources cited. User:Milarepanoakhali User talk:Milarepanoakhali 06:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Milarepanoakhali (by far the major contributor to the article) has repeatedly tried to disrupt this discussion by removing all content from this page and removing the AfD notice from the article.JBW (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

I am a new editor, there were some inadvertent and unintended mistakes. I apologise. Milarepanoakhali (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Another mistake you are mistaking is repeatedly !voting "keep". You are allowed only one "keep" per AfD. I have struck out the repetitions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All references are from high quality sources, discussion on notability is not needed, the person is a notable academic as suggested by search results. many previous attempts at vandalising this page through repeated use of Afd tag . 06:50, 3 March 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.217.230.116 (talk)

The person using the IP address 103.217.230.116 and several other IP addresses in the range 103.217.230.0/24 (who originally created the article, in draft space) has repeatedly tried to disrupt this discussion by means such as removing all content from this page and repeatedly removing the AfD notice from the article. Evidently what they mean by "attempts at vandalising this page through repeated use of Afd tag" is reverting of their own vandalism. JBW (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG or any criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. None of the references provided show significant coverage of the subject, and a large number are links to the subject's own work. PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, I checked random sources, some are not working, and others are not clarifying his notability, so, it fails WP:N also.. — B203GTB (talk) • 16:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unfortunate to see such disruptions in AFD process. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Lacks WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I am always a little biased/partial towards academics/scientists. I have a soft corner for them, also WP:NACADEMIC is a little too difficult to pass. But this article feels just plain wrong. The subject fails WP:NACADEMIC, as well as WP:GNG. Feels like a vanity project. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fixed article through removing reference to primary sources. Article passes WP:GNG- 'reliable' and 'independent of subject'. Coverage of academics from the global south has always been mostly non-existent on Wikipedia. This should be given a chance as it is representative of many significant new pages which have thus faced merciless deletion; See this musician and celebrity: Bhuban Badyakar. I wonder if an American or British internet celebrity page would face the same consequences? I also wonder why unsolicited AFD tags don't count as vandalism. Or is this more of a structural problem for any Wiki project? Is 'vandalism' like 'terrorism'? Evil for the majority, but brave and good for those whose interests are entwined. I see more than just Conflict of Interest in this present sorry state of affairs. Was an editor 7 years ago too, did not face these problems then. Pity editors from the global south are either not aware or not as active as their compeers. I request support, if there are any unbiased and totally objective editors/admins reading this. User talk:Milarepanoakhali — Preceding undated comment added 07:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

"Coverage of academics from the global south has always been mostly non-existent on Wikipedia."!! India is north of the Equator. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

comment added 07:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Kindly see Global North and Global South User talk:Milarepanoakhali

• Keep From search results, he seems to have some genuine contributions. I think it passes WP:GNG. I vote to keep. Rahimmmusafir (talk) — Rahimmmusafir (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep We editors should be more sympathetic in such scenarios, where secondary sources may be scant. But this article on living person biography definitely passes WP:GNG; opinions may vary but can not see enough reason for deletion. Danieldonatella — Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC) — Danieldonatella (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Person is an Indian scholar who has lectured and published widely in the field of art history- a very new and marginalised discipline in the context of India. This deserves to be kept in the public domain. User talk:Jaggubhaichittoragarh 08:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC) — Jaggubhaichittoragarh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Seems one of those unfortunate AFDs.User talk:Brutusthecleaner 21:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC) — Brutusthecleaner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep I don't know much on India but I reckon he is an established academic in this subject.User talk:Jhamelanaai 22:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC) — Jhamelanaai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete: as per nom. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. - Hatchens (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it passes WP:ACADEMIC. See Criteria- (1)The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed; (2)The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. User talk:Milarepanoakhali

• KEEP I think it passes WP:ACADEMIC. See Criteria- (1)The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed; (2)The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. User talk:Milarepanoakhali
• KEEP Also passes WP:BIO See- WP:BIO Additional Criteria: (1) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or (2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. User talk:Milarepanoakhali
• Delete. Current doctoral students almost never have accumulated the impact for academic notability and from the Google Scholar results this case appears to be no exception, nor do we have the in-depth independent coverage needed for general notability. The sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry on display above should be an embarrassment to the subject, but in any case we decide AfDs based on the strength of policy-based arguments, not on numbers of participant names or the numbers of times the same participant repeats the same claims. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- An early career scholar who has not yet published much is probably NN. I might alter that view if a list of substantial published works was provided, but I see none at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See edits since nominations, most references to published works were removed by me, after other editors objected to them as being 'primary sources'. This can be reverted if there is a consensus. Milarepanoakhali (talk) Milarepanoakhali — Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. It is irrelevant how many published works there are. What destroys this AfD is that nobody has cited them. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Publishing papers isn't what gets you a pass of WP:PROF; it's showing that your work has been influential. No sign of that here. XOR'easter (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin: All of the preceding keep !votes that I have struck were made by the same user using sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Milarepanoakhali. Mz7 (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Salt in view of the sockpuppetry. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  I endorse salting. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2022 (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.