Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narmala Shewcharan

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narmala Shewcharan

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

Multiple issues that have persisted for years. Appears to have been nominated for a national award (but lost) and won another far less important one. No indication that this individual meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC Bueller 007 (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Apart from the national award nomination, there is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems to be one of a number of Guyanese-related articles which the nominator has fairly rapidly put up for deletion in the wake of WP:Articles for deletion/Dennis Adonis, and I am wondering just how much care, at least for some of these subsequent nominations, they put into WP:BEFORE - the lack of which is likely to aggravate an existing problem of systemic bias with regard to coverage of Guyana on Wikipedia, rather sharply brought into focus by the fact that, at the time of nomination, this article contained twice as many references (albeit not used for inline citations) as the articles on Guyana's prime minister (since 1992) and president combined. As to the existing references - I don't have the access immediately available to confirm for certain that they refer to the subject in depth, and two of the six seem to be to student dissertations. But of the other four, one is an academic book from a reputable publisher and two are articles in peer-review academic journals; and I have managed to add an inline reference to another academic article that seems to discuss one of the subject's books in some depth. PWilkinson (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The argument of avoiding systematic bias is relevant: it does little harm to keep borderline notable articles as compared with the harm from not covering areas where usable sources are harder to find. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this policy should be considered when nominating an article for deletion. The subject of the article appears to have met the inclusion criteria. With a quick google search, I found this notable novel, [1], [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] among others. I respect DGG (talk · contribs) view on systemic bias. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:27, 7 February 2015 (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.