Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seeta Kulkarni

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeta Kulkarni

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

Non-notable writer. A WP:BEFORE indicates no coverage whatsoever of any depth or persistence in reliable sources. Fails the most basic requirements necessary to meet WP:ANYBIO, let alone WP:NAUTHOR or WP:CREATIVE; I cannot, per WP:ATD establish a suitable locus for any WP:R. This has gone through some tagging-detagging-retagging in its brief history, so I think it best to bring it here to establish a consensus in either direction. — fortunavelut luna 07:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One source and no known notability does not make a teacher notable. VViking_TalkEdits 14:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Viewmont Viking and WP:A7. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Over-personal and promotional .Might be notable, but it would have to be done over. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Who's Who entry might hint at notability but we'd need more sources, which I can't find either. In any case, the current content is promotional, unreferenced, and unsalvageable. – Joe (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sahitya Akademi is India's premier body for Indian writers particularly in Indian languages and lists her. The author writes in Marathi and hence is not going to have a significant presence in online (English) media. Article claims she has 51 published books. That should usually meet criteria of notability. Though article will need re-writing. Johnnysmitha (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2017 (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.