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 Obvious keep, the nomination reads as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and clearly ignores the substantial body of sourcing in the article, which is also noted below. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Sarkar[edit]

Ash Sarkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

contravenes Wiki policy on notability for Creative Professionals TomReagan90 (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals

WikiPolicy is all that matters:

1. Is she widely cited by peers or successors? No. She's not cited once in any academic literature, or as an authority on any significant topic in any mainstream publication.

2. Has she originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique? No.

3. Has she created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work? No.

4. Has her work/s: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. No.

There is no debate to be had.

Wikipedia is not a summary of everything that's ever been published in English print and online media. It's an encyclopedia.

TomReagan90 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2021 (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)).

• Keep Clearly a notable individual per coverage of her in reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Sam Walton (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious speedy keep. Suggesting deletion of an obviously significant media figure like Sarkar is so obviously ridiculous that I have to question whether this nomination is made in good faith. The only part of the nomination that is on point is the bit where it says "There is no debate to be had" which is obviously correct but obviously not in the way that the nominator intends. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: I've fixed the Google links at the top of this page and the results are now as you might expect: 2,420 hits in Google News and so on. Ironically, these hit counts are high, in part, because her enemies just can't stop writing stuff about her. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per GNG, pretty clear that she has established notability and has significant coverage. AnApple47 (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, as anticipated. I don't think there's been a Question Time panellist in the last 20 years who's been non-notable, because the BBC do a good job of making sure that the people who appear represent some major demographic of the UK in some way. Significant role as a journalist. Significant coverage over the Birchill topic, the "literally a communist" remark and lots of bits and pieces elsewhere. Article as it stands shows notability three times over but there's plenty more coverage out there if someone wants to improve it. The nominator has failed to grasp how our notability policies work: WP:BASIC says that People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below, so any failure of WP:AUTHOR would be necessary but not sufficient for non-notability—if the user had actually asked then they would have cleared up this misconception. The nominator, who doesn't appear to have much history editing here, has misjudged the notability standards on Wikipedia for a lot higher than what they are. People accept any number of mistakes if you're polite and try to learn, but to do that you have to accept that you might be wrong. — Bilorv (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rebuttal Again, you demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of what an encyclopedia is. If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Question_Time_episodes there have been plenty of non-notable guests - passing celebs or comedians or pop stars who don't have bios in Wiki and in my opinion certainly don't deserve them. It's not the 1950s. Just because someone's "on the telly" doesn't make them notable. I suspect all of us commenting here could "get on the telly" by the end of the month if we really put our mind to it. The criteria is there for a reason, otherwise it's a free-for-all regurgitation of the contemporary (or in this case, 3-years-out-of-date) media landscape in one country. TomReagan90 (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This isn't a vote. It's a matter of policy. She does not meet the criteria as set out in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. Either the criteria needs changing, or we just allow a tyranny of a majority (aka "the rabble") to run roughshod over Wikipedia's founding principles and the whole concept of what an online encylopedia is. It is not news. It is not a repository for gossip and scandal and Twitter disputes. If Ash Sarkar is to be included, then millions of journalists and activists around the world out to be included. That's not encyclopedic. TomReagan90 (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TomReagan90: It doesn't matter if she meets those criteria: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". The actual standard she needs to meet is WP:N which she clearly does. Sam Walton (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Barely meets WP:BASIC per Sam Walton. Contrary to the nom's suggestion, Sarkar need not meet WP:NCREATIVE if she meets WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, which Sam Walton's sources (particularly those in The Times and Teen Vogue) demonstrate—although another in-depth profile would be nice if it's available. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw: if, like me, you don't subscribe to The Times, the article is on ProQuest at ProQuest 2049477240. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe that the sources mentioned by Sam Walton demonstrate that the subject passes the requirements of GNG. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's no good just simply typing "The actual standard she needs to meet is WP:N which she clearly does." That is not a meaningful argument. You need to be specific, as WP:N unfortunately isn't. Is it seriously your contention that anyone who is written about in, say, The Times or Teen Vogue meets WP:N? Is that "Significant coverage"? Do you have any idea how many millions of people that would include if our threshold was so low? How on earth is this article encyclopedic. I.e. What is anyone supposed to learn from this Bio entry? She has made no original, significant contribution to political commentary, academic debate, nor has she produced any significant works of art. These kinds of articles reduce Wikipedia to a very Twitter/Tabloid mismash of gossip rag and vanity self-promotion. This person's "notability" derived from an incident on a morning chat show (there'd be millions of those guests to add too) in which she called Piers Morgan an idiot and declared herself a "literal communist". What is encyclopedic about that? WP:SUSTAINED "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. New organizations and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION." Why can't you just be specific? Why can't you agree to maintain at least some basic standards of academic rigor? If the Encyclopedia Britannica was expanded to include 5 million articles, ask yourself, do you honestly believe this would or should be one of them? TomReagan90 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, Wikipedia is not engaged in Scandal mongering, Wikipedia is not a newspaper (WP:EXCESSDETAIL) to be filled with trivial content (such as, where Ash Sarkar went to school), Wikipedia is not a "Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic," and Wikipedia is not a democracy, "Polling is not a substitute for discussion". TomReagan90 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AleatoryPonderings. Several editors have now clearly explained that WP:N trumps WP:NARTIST, and nominator should withdraw the mistaken AfD to avoid wasting other people's time even further. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Question This isn't a poll. And WP:N doesn't "trump" WP:NARTIST, you need to read the policy again. Please, specifically, what is it about the "sustained coverage" of Ash Sarkar that qualifies her as notable? Is it that she was written about in The Times, with the writer saying "It is in her role as an editor at Novara Media, a radical left-wing website, however, that she has come to prominence"? Or is it the Teen Vogue article from 3 years ago which perpetuated her 15mins of fame by writing about the initial incident that gained her notoriety - namely, calling Piers Morgan an idiot on a cable breakfast TV show? TomReagan90 (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @TomReagan90: The Times article is a perfect example of the kind of in-depth coverage that qualifies someone as notable, e.g. "Her Bengali grandmother came to Britain from Calcutta, aged 17. She became a hospital carer, her daughter became a social worker. As a child Sarkar and her sister lived in precarious accommodation, but when she was 11 her mother remarried and the family enjoyed 'immense comfort and security'. For sixth form she moved from her comprehensive to a selective grammar...." etc. etc. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Reminder "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. New organizations and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION." You just made my point. Her notoriety in The Times and Teen Vogue dates from nearly 3 years ago. "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability", hence WP:NOTNEWSPAPER TomReagan90 (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:NOTNEWS, events must be put into encyclopedic context. e.g. from Dazed: "The Muslim north Londoner is reinventing political punditry with her fiercely feminist frankness, catching the attention of BBC’s Newsnight and Channel 4’s controversial talkshow Genderquake. Her success hasn’t resulted in complacency in her fight for representation in politics, however. [...] As an editor at alternative left-wing outlet Novara Media, Sarkar challenges power, racism and austerity. For her, journalism is activism. [...] With each impassioned television appearance, Sarkar cements herself as a political force – and always starts and ends with her signature gun fingers. “I always did them in photos at school, I thought I was being hard. Being a bolshy little teenager has never left me, I guess.”" Beccaynr (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Beccaynr: Again, you're just helping to prove my point re: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Like the articles in The Times and Teen Vogue, this website profile on "Dazed", dates to three years ago, the aftermath of the incident that spawned her notoriety. "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability". Please point me to any "sustained coverage" that doesn't source to Twitter spats of fringe-view websites. TomReagan90 (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BASIC, People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below (e.g. WP:CREATIVE), and because there is another profile: Meet the voices resetting the political agenda in the UK (Dazed, 2018) and per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Beccaynr (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So now just any random website will do. Oh well, I guess this is the future of Wikipedia then - in 10 years we'll ALL have our own bio/vanity piece. I know I have more publications and citations than her already.... I just need to get on a morning cable show and call the host a buffoon, declare myself an primitivist anarchist, and I'm bound to reach the notability criteria for Wikipedia by that evening! What a joke. There's actually substantive, award-winning, storied journalists with over 1000 publications to their name that don't have Wikipedia articles. But the moment someone says something silly on TV/YouTube/Podcast, there'll always be an army of myrmidons regurgitating all the scandal on Wikipedia and telling us what football team they support (without a source of course) TomReagan90 (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think WP:STICK applies at this point. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Or we could just adhere to Wiki policy. Or common sense. But nah, what the heck, let's aim for, say, 1 million more bios of fringe journalists and activists by the end of 2021? People doing original academic research and studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, we'll ignore them for now eh? Stick to the tabloidy stuff - that's what Wikipedia was meant for! TomReagan90 (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you name some examples of articles you've created about award-winning journalism or academia? I spend a good amount of my time creating such content (for a journalism example, Pullitzer-winner "An Unbelievable Story of Rape"; for academia, Linear time property). If you name some names and start some drafts, I'll give you feedback/pointers/help in any way I can. What we have an absence of on Wikipedia is people willing to write content. What we don't have an absence of is bad-natured bickering. — Bilorv (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I work with award-winning journalists who don't even exist on Wikipedia, despite their presence at gala functions and one receiving such an award directly from the current President of the time, a certain Barack Obama (and there's photos galore). Yet this person's name doesn't appear anywhere in this encyclopedia. Yet the Wiki editors seem content to foster the kind of anglo-centric recentism which is explicitly stated by the Wiki's creators as being a pitfall of the entire project. Just look at the size of this article, or Paris Hilton's, compared to say, Richard Spencer, The Times current Mid-East correspondent with over 1000 by-lines to his name. Or multi award-winning Sunday Times Middle East correspondent Louise Callaghan who also doesn't exist in the Wikipedia universe. Or, to take any one of countless more obscene examples, the size of Ash Sarkar's article vs that of Sahar Khodayari - the woman who committed self-immolation in protest at women being forbidden to attend football matches, which led to FIFA forcing the Islamic Republic of Iran to change their law. So how about instead of saying "well, it is what it is", we start making a more determined and consistent effort to achieve balance and a worldwide perspective in judging what content is truly encyclopedic? Time is precious, time is money, I write for a living, but arguing "well Wiki is full of articles like this, the threshold for notability doesn't match the stated criteria in the policy documents, but, what can we do?" is irrelevant whataboutery. There's no reason why the football team that Ash Sarkar apparently supports should be deemed appropriate encyclopedic material, while the last four winners of arguably the most esteemed journalism prize in the world (the Albert Londres Prize) don't even have any bios themselves! TomReagan90 (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Go on then. Expand those topics and create those articles. Who is stopping you? Do you think you're the only person here who has a full-time job? Couldn't you spend some of the hours you've poured into personal attacks and nastiness writing new content instead? Don't yell at the people who work hard to create articles, because they've not created enough of them (only 24 hours in a day). Go yell at some readers who've never contributed anything to Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think some people have jumped the gun here, and have not carefully considered Wiki policy. I believe the discussion might benefit from some fresh eyes on the argumentation and competing perceptions of what kind of individuals are suitably notable for Wikipedia bios. TomReagan90 (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The references now in the article are entirely sufficient to show that this person is notable. As an American, I had never heard of her until just now. It seems that this nomination is motivated by a wish to make a point and so I encourage the nominator to read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If there are wonderful journalists who do not now have Wikipedia biographies, then write policy compliant biographies of those people. That's how we roll. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply - This is not a poll. And that is not how Wiki works. Wiki has specific policies for just this type of article. They are so far being ignored. This is not a "policy compliant biography", that's the whole point of this discussion. - TomReagan90 (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply I have been an editor for 12 years and an administrator for almost four years and do not need to be advised that "this is not a poll". You are bludgeoning this debate because you have not been successful so far at convincing other editors that this article should be deleted. You should know that repetition is not an effective form of persuasion. Your time would be better spent on writing policy compliant biographies of the "actually substantive, award-winning, storied journalists with over 1000 publications to their name that don't have Wikipedia articles." That would help improve the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply@Cullen328: I have been a journalist and researcher for 11 years and I don't write for unreliable/compromised outlets on the principle that doing so would lend them additional credibility. I'm hardly going to devote hundreds of hours of my free time composing articles such as this one - but of much greater importance than this one - for free, while at the same time putting those esteemed journalists/academics on a level pegging with fringe publicity hungry hacks such as Ash Sarkar. Clearly, at this point, it appears to me that it's better that serious journalists not have their reputations sullied by the appearance of a Wikipedia article under their name, less they be mistaken for notorious twitter warriors. TomReagan90 (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  These are unambiguous expressions of animus against Sarkar from the nominator. Clearly there is no good faith nomination here and I request a speedy close to this AfD under WP:SNOW. I would also remind TomReagan90 that he is under absolutely no obligation to edit Wikipedia if he does not wish to. If he has become disillusioned with the project, and feels that his time is better served elsewhere, then he is free to stop at any time. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply@Cullen328: Yes, and this is exactly kind of attitude that prevents experts from contributing to Wikipedia. Uncontroversial evaluative judgments are immediately used as ammunition to claim "bias!", "personal attack!", "no good faith!" - followed by a polite invitation to leave the project to the full-timers. Classy. Labeling, without qualification, Ash Sarkar as a journalist and - much worse, an academic - is akin to labeling self-proclaimed anti-vaxxers as "scientists" or "virology experts". To call that out is not an "expressions of animus", but an expression of factual accuracy. What kind of "academic" has never published a single academic paper? TomReagan90 (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep. Sarkar clearly passes WP:BASIC and this is a blatantly disruptive nomination. – Joe (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:GNG as demonstrated above. (pinged by feedback service).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. keep, meets WP:GNG. The noms WP:BLUDGEONING of the subject clearly isn't helping. I have to wonder if we should be assuming good faith or not at this stage. Seems WP:POINTy to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sources provided by Sam Walton in the initial keep comment are more than enough for WP:BASIC Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sarkar is a well-known public figure here in Britain, sought by several national newspapers for her opinion, and frequently in the news herself. She easily passes the GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]