Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajiv Lather

Notable enough for Wikipedia ? Jay 12:45, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC) Addendum: This page was originally on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old but moved here due to a deadlocked discussion. Johnleemk | Talk 14:05, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: 218 Google hits, mostly poems published online. Not enough to merit inclusion. Cutler 13:34, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 18:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• As far as I know all four of the journals/magazines are published in 'print format'. Moreover 'The Modern Haiku' is the top journal for Haiku written in English and the 'Frogpond' is considered to be the second most important English Haiku journal. About counting Google hits, remember Haiku is not as yet a popular form in India. - 202.131.114.185
  • Sorry I wasn't aware of a poetry form called Haiku. I've asked Haiku contributors at talk:Haiku to try and salvage this page if they have heard of Rajiv Lather. Jay 12:13, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• "Writing a poem and waiting for a reaction is like dropping a flower in a well and waiting for the splash," Stephen Spender said. Haiku is a form, alright, but being published is not the same thing as being a notable author in the case of little magazines (i.e. literary magazines). If the article said which British Council uses his poems, gave evidence of the presentation of a volume, or provided academic standing, I'd say keep. As it is, it puts the subject on the same level with many poets who publish from time to time in magazines, and this one looks too much like advertising. Weak delete. Geogre 16:58, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • After changes, neutral, except that it should be sent to Clean Up for NPOV. Geogre 02:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but Clean Up for NPOV. Geogre 02:29, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I have edited the page under discussion. I hope it answers some of the points raised in here. In all this, let us not forget the 'Indian' context, more importantly, 'Indian writing in English'. - 202.131.114.185
  • I noticed your changes, yet I feel I'm not qualified enough to vote to keep. If a registered user vouches for the page, then its ok with me. But at least an anonymous user is passionate about this page (are you Rajiv Lather yourself ??!! ). In any case you can create an account and contribute - Haiku and Wikipedia needs you. Jay 16:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I will continue to contribute to Wikipedia - there are many subjects that interest me. But I prefer to remain invisible.

Tricky. A lot of the references are only web, but it is also true that Haiku is underappreciated in most of the English-speaking world. I'm going to have to say notable enough to keep The Steve 05:19, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC) (Vote added from vfd main space by Graham ☺ | Talk)

• ... it's a vanity page, and would remain so even if formatted properly. If he deserves an article for publishing Haiku, then would I deserve one for doing the same? Let him promote himself on a personal webpage, just like everyone else. Delete (sorry, 202.131.114.185. I'm glad you're not discouraged from contributing further.) --Ardonik 20:37, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
• I've tried making this a bit more of a normal Wikipedia article. It's marginal, but I vote to keep. I had a look at some of his poetry, it's more than routinely good. I bet he'll be in Wikipedia eventually, without controversy over the matter, but I won't scream if people think his inclusion at this time would be premature. -- Jmabel 23:56, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • It has honestly improved (in spite of my previous comments); it's more of a stub now than a vanity page. A history section, some examples of his military philosophy, and maybe a relevant biographical haiku, and we're in business. Keep. --Ardonik 02:31, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Attempted to stubify. I hereby disqualify myself from voting (I'm such a waffler) but I'm still in a keeping mood. --Ardonik 02:43, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - this looks fine now. Secretlondon 12:58, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)