Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananta Das Goswami
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 DELETE. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ananta Das Goswami
Unverifiable [1] Delete -Doc ask? 13:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Um you have to google for "Goswami" [2] as well as "Gaswami". http://babukishan.com/lineage.htm is the best-looking reference, but it doesn't really look like a totally reliable source. Kappa 13:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 13:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Just because I, an American, can't easily verify the career of a 300 year old Indian musician doesn't mean he isn't notable. However, the author had several months to beef up the article and did nothing. So, Weak delete based on this version and the author can try again another time. Thatcher131 15:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep probably notable in his own field and nation. Bobby1011 15:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No discussion as to notability of subject or of contributions to music or philosophy, all assertions that require factual verification to be substantive content on an encyclopædia. (aeropagitica) 18:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete without independent verification. Gamaliel 18:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. This doesn't seem to be vanity or something. The author of the article (User:Krishna.Bandi) has not indulged in any kind of vanity creation. Creating an article on a baul of Bengal born in 1700 doesn't help the author in any way. The article Music of Bengal (which was never edited by the author) also mentions this baul - "Other Bengali music, shared by West Bengal and Bangladesh, is from the poetry and songs of Ananta Das Goswami, Kabir...". Give the article benefit of doubt. May be Merge with Music of Bengal or Baul? utcursch | talk 11:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC).Doc's arguments have convinced me to change my vote to Delete - delete it because it cannot be verified. I searched all available resources yesterday, but couldn't find anything about this baul. The few pages that Google returns have taken their content from Wikipedia - so, we are actually doing some harm by spreading possibly wrong information -- probably this man never existed/author typed in his name by mistake... utcursch | talk 06:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to have miessed the point. This isn't about vanity but verifiability. WP:V and WP:CITE do not permit us to 'give the benefit of the doubt'. If anyone can verify this, I'm happy for it to be kept. --Doc ask? 12:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the verifiability issue is affected by the fact that most wikipedians are young white males (I read somewhere). This results in WP content being shaped by the inherent baises of its editors (virtually no articles on stage actors/actresses but dozens of articles on Star Wars, for example). I agree that in a perfect WP an editor would post more information, like influences that carry through to today's Indian music. I worry that by deleting things be cause "we" don't know about them, "we" (who are not very representative of humanity as a whole) are creating a biased result. Thatcher131 12:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Most subjects on wikipedia I know nothing about - and I don't nominate for deletion. This has nothing to do with the subject matter or my skin coulour gender or (lack of) youthfulness. If this article cannot be verified it should be deleted - if it can, then if shoudl stay. --Doc ask? 12:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Although WP is supposed to be a collaborative medium, applying that standard means that if an author writes an article about an obscure subject that can't be readily googled, he has to get it right the first time or else. I voted above weak delete because the article hadn't been edited in months, but I think we should be open to the possibility that the article standard and AfD process will sometimes reinforce systemic bias. Thatcher131 15:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm all for combating systematic bias, and I'm great believer that Google isn't the be all and end all of verification (a citation from a book or reputable journal is good too). But, what are you suggesting? That we shouldn't require the verification of articles on 'obscre' subjects, or that they should hang arround for weeks waiting for someone to verify them? That way lies hoaxes. Indeed, it is procisely where the subject is obscure and few wikipedians would recognise errors and inaccuracies that we must be rigourous in demanding authors verify and cite. --Doc ask? 16:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Although WP is supposed to be a collaborative medium, applying that standard means that if an author writes an article about an obscure subject that can't be readily googled, he has to get it right the first time or else. I voted above weak delete because the article hadn't been edited in months, but I think we should be open to the possibility that the article standard and AfD process will sometimes reinforce systemic bias. Thatcher131 15:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Most subjects on wikipedia I know nothing about - and I don't nominate for deletion. This has nothing to do with the subject matter or my skin coulour gender or (lack of) youthfulness. If this article cannot be verified it should be deleted - if it can, then if shoudl stay. --Doc ask? 12:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the verifiability issue is affected by the fact that most wikipedians are young white males (I read somewhere). This results in WP content being shaped by the inherent baises of its editors (virtually no articles on stage actors/actresses but dozens of articles on Star Wars, for example). I agree that in a perfect WP an editor would post more information, like influences that carry through to today's Indian music. I worry that by deleting things be cause "we" don't know about them, "we" (who are not very representative of humanity as a whole) are creating a biased result. Thatcher131 12:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: The article in its current state needs Expansion, not deletion. Google, and any other Internet search engines can't be considered the *only* tool for verifiability, not all cultures/issues of the world can be googled. The article should be expanded with references to books. Systemic bias is difficult to counter. Thanks. --Ragib 16:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Here is another reference, though it sounds quite like the Music of Bengal sentence. --Ragib 16:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- You miss the point again. The choise is not beween expansion or deletion, but between verification and deletion. You say 'the article should be expanded with references to books' - and that google is not the only source, I agree, but can it be, and are there other sources? If it can be verified, then keep it, if not then delete it for now. Systematic bias is not the issue - the reliability of information is. --Doc ask? 16:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the article deserves more time to have a knowledgeable editor to add the information. This article is not vanity, nor promotion. By the definition of verifiability, a lot of stub articles would face the axe. But many of those initially unverifiable articles have later been expanded. Let the article expand. Thanks. --Ragib 18:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- A knowledgable editor can always recreate it. It has been here unverified for almost 6 months, how much longer do you suggest? --Doc ask? 19:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Officially that's true. Unofficially, such an editor must also be knowledgable in speedy deletion and beaurocracy of DRV. As any new article, of a deleted name, stands a good chance of being speedy deleted. Even if you contest it successfully in DRV, you may have to wait a week before being "allowed" to edit the article again. --Rob 06:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- A knowledgable editor can always recreate it. It has been here unverified for almost 6 months, how much longer do you suggest? --Doc ask? 19:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the article deserves more time to have a knowledgeable editor to add the information. This article is not vanity, nor promotion. By the definition of verifiability, a lot of stub articles would face the axe. But many of those initially unverifiable articles have later been expanded. Let the article expand. Thanks. --Ragib 18:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- You miss the point again. The choise is not beween expansion or deletion, but between verification and deletion. You say 'the article should be expanded with references to books' - and that google is not the only source, I agree, but can it be, and are there other sources? If it can be verified, then keep it, if not then delete it for now. Systematic bias is not the issue - the reliability of information is. --Doc ask? 16:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Also keep the verificaton tag on. In point of unfortunate fact there are many unverified articles on Wikipedia. The solution is sometimes to tag, not delete. Tagging both alerts readers to be especially careful in considering the article's contents, and puts the article on the road to eventual improvement. Patience. A researcher, armed with nothing but the name, will come here someday and use the extra info provided to further his search -- and then, hopefully, return and footnote the article. Herostratus 17:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Nice theory, pity it hasn't worked after 6 months. How much longer would you give it? 6-12-18. And your theory only works if there is verification out there to be had (there isn't at the moment). What if the article is a hoax, or the guy is truely nn, then nothing will happen and we might be left with an unverified and potentially incorrect article indefinately. I'd say 6 months is long enough when there is no corroberation at all. --Doc ask? 17:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- We don't have "no corroberation at all", we have at least one independent and reasonably notable-looking source. Kappa 18:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- The nice theory is quite possibly true, but you could always find a few hundred exceptions if you look hard enough. Tintin (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nice theory, pity it hasn't worked after 6 months. How much longer would you give it? 6-12-18. And your theory only works if there is verification out there to be had (there isn't at the moment). What if the article is a hoax, or the guy is truely nn, then nothing will happen and we might be left with an unverified and potentially incorrect article indefinately. I'd say 6 months is long enough when there is no corroberation at all. --Doc ask? 17:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete It's been here since last September. If no one has come up with a source by now, I think we should let it go. The fact that there are many unverified things on Wikipedia can't become a rationale for keeping things. I hate to flush things that might be good too, but it's gotta be verifiable. If someone finds sources in the future and can make a solid case, they can always recreate it. --Shadow Puppet 01:36, 23 February 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.
