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. Though the available sources show a limited level of notability, the general consensus from this discussion is that they are not enough to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Singh (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a blatant advertisement to sell a book by a non-notable author and is likely autobiography. There have been repeated rejections of both "Singh Rashmi" and the individual books as topics on WP:AFC as this is WP:COI advertising with relatively few sources to establish notability. I'm not sure how this page got past WP:AFC. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to advertise books for commercial sale. K7L (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nowhere near satisfying WP:AUTHOR. --regentspark (comment) 15:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(fleshing out for GC) WP:AUTHOR says: the author should be regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. That's not true here. The author has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Of these, she's been the subject of a couple of magazine articles, all fluff interviews. No reviews (the economic times article is also an interview). Item 4 says the author has won significant critical attention. Not true again. That's why she doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR. --regentspark (comment) 12:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.- How can you say this is not true when she has been mentioned in so many popular and widely read media? The Telegraph will never take a PR kind of interview and in Economic Times, she has been mentioned independently. I am not advertising or anything for the author as I know many would either immediately delete my comment or hit hard at it, by saying what all I say is crappyAnanyaprasad (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ananyaprasad, a couple of interviews is not the same as "widely". All sorts of people get interviewed in newspapers (heck, even I've been interviewed in a generally reliable newspaper!). What we'd like to see is a couple of book reviews in newspapers, a discussion about the author that is independent of the author herself (an interview is not independent), that sort of thing. regentspark (comment) 13:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? No-one has described your comments as "crappy". There was a deletion elsewhere, with an explanation on your talk page of what you needed to do in order to fix it. It was, in fact, fixed. Why resort to this distortion? It is unnecessary. - Sitush (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, I think you need to be more magnanimous in your outlook. I am not asking you to be charitable by accepting the article but you did mention somewhere the sources as crappy But here I see Wikipedia says if The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.. But if sources are termed as 'crappy' and resorting to plagiarism even when they are coming from prestigious sites, then I guess, nobody can help. Moreover peers and successors can mentioned only in the best possible means/sites available to them. They can't wait for Times to come and take their interviewsAnanyaprasad (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are so biased that you have mentioned the highest circulated Indian nespaper this way The Times of India, who publishes the Economic Times: it has gone massively downhill in recent years and is increasingly a gossip/showbiz rag. Then who will publish for Indian authors?Ananyaprasad (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per RegentsPark. I've spent much of today attempting to find useful support for the article but have failed. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Pity, but it looks like a delete. I was hoping some of the refs I couldn't access would be articles or something. I will wait till the end to weigh in. Until then, maybe she wrote stuff in Hindi, and there are some Non-English media refs out there. It's a long shot, but after all the work you folks put it, it's worth a shot. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Anna. Putting all the COI accusations aside, I think this article ought not to have been AFDed so hastily. It's not like the subject is totally unsourced. She has been mentioned multiple times in popular media. There were after all over 14 sources when I edited it yesterday, now there are only 3 (some of them got deleted per WP:CITEKILL and claims of unreliability). I hope I am not sounding prejudicial when I say this article regardless of the wikiquette incident mentioned below, need not be deleted. Yes, she may not be as notable as Shakesphere but she is not exactly "Mrs nobody". Mr T^(Talk?) 19:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we have to look at the good references. The others don't really add up to anything. There are 3. (Actually, the timesofindia.com one is a pay site, so I can't see that.) That's not enough.

Maybe because the creator was so hopeful, and was on such an emotional roller coaster, it softened a few wiki-hearts, and led to approval of something below the bar. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MRT, this does not reflect badly on you. Anna has hit the nail on the head here and you are probably aware of discussions such as this. - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You understood me correctly. Yes, I was apprehending that it is going to reflect badly on me. But it's also true that I believe what I wrote and there was no ego involved. And again, I will humbly accept the consensus reached. Thanks for trying to understand my share of the predicament. Mr T^(Talk?) 08:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna says it is "not enough" sources, but does not say what "enough" would be. Not to repeat too much from below, the number of sources is irrelevant. The question is the strength. The sources are all major periodicals in India. In fact the biggest in terms of circulation, significantly for notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The original attempts to get this through WP:AFC were made by user:rrashmissingh and are the subject of a Wikiquette incident, Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive122#Accusations of bias. The proposed articles on "Singh Rashmi" and the book "Love's Journey" were rejected under some combination of WP:ADV and WP:GNG along with the usual catch-all, lacks reliable, independent sources. There may be more than one account, multiple IP's and more than one page title in use here. The user or users rather vociferously deny the WP:COI and are confrontational when the pages are declined. This page was already declined as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rashmi Singh Author and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Singh Rashmi. I've also listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love's Journey which also looks to be WP:COI (User:Love's Journey, a likely WP:SOCK of user:rrashmissingh, is already blocked). K7L (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Elockid might be able to handle it with grace. Mr T^(Talk?) 19:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Don't know about other issues like COI etc.. but the question for AfD is very simple: are there two independent reliable sources that cover the topic in a non-trivial manner. They appear to be:
  • "Her pen does the talking", The Telegraph (vies with the Times of India for the position of having the widest circulation of any newspaper in Eastern India).
  • "A Pristine Surmise", The Economic Times (published by Time of India, see note previous)

Both of these articles are dedicated to the subject, are of medium-length, not trivial. This seems to meet WP:GNG requirements. Welcome dissenting opinion. AfD is very simple: two sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? How to you square it with WP:AUTHOR? - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two counts as "multiple sources", the requirement per WP:GNG. Given the sterling strength of these sources (sort of like India's New York Times or USA Today) it seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The WP:AUTHOR is an optional method, but as it says under the "Additional criteria" heading: 'Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included'. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph is nowhere near the Indian equivalent of the NY Times. Nor is The Times of India, who publishs the Economic Times: it has gone massively downhill in recent years and is increasingly a gossip/showbiz rag. Only The Hindu comes close to the NY Times, and you'll find that most experienced editors involved with the WP India Project would agree (it has been discussed, on and off). Circulation is not everything, otherwise we'd treat The Sun as a reliable source for UK news and book reviews etc. (We don't). I agree that WP:AUTHOR is not the be-all and end-all of things, but I do think that "multiple" is generally considered to mean > two. If not then we should revise the wording to say "at least two". Interviews and PR stuff do not usually count for much, either. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For notability, newspaper circulation is significant. Two sources really is the minimum though not always depends on how strong the sources are. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious. Where does it say that two sources and you're good to go for an article? Multiple is many, and many is usually more than two. Could you please point to a specific policy page that states that articles with two or more independent reliable sources is the only requirement for keeping an article. I'll take the triviality issue once you've pointed to the policy page. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 22:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, multiple is not the same as "many", many is "an indefinite large number". The rules do not say you need "many" sources. The rules say you need "multiple" sources.

• Wiktionary: Multiple (adj): Having more than one element, part, component, or function.
• WP:GNG: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected."

I believe these sources have depth of coverage and are of quality source. Two sources meets the definition of multiple. This is not some trick or lawyerism, AfDs often pass with two reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"AfDs often pass with two reliable sources". They do? When the grounds for deletion are notability? I'd be really interested to see some examples. Let's ignore dictionary definitions, though, because they are in fact lawyering in situations such as this. Just stick with how T. C. Mits (The Celebrated Man in the Street) would see it: multiple is many. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#What_is_.22multiple.22_sources.3F. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush & regentspark - I hope you have read and understand the above discussion. The fact is, an article can pass notability with one source. There is no set number. The question is if these two sources are strong enough to establish notability. I believe so since the papers have such wide circulation and visibility in India, for the purposes of notability. Please note my initial understanding above was two is a minimum so I have been corrected on that point. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom - I must say - you've got a point. How many is reliably "many"? Mr T^(Talk?) 08:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very surprised, although drawing conclusions after three hours of discussion might be a bit hasty. India has a population of over a billion but the literacy rates are not great (75% or so) and not everyone who can read, reads English. Still, the Telegraph has a readership estimated as 1.2 million and the Economic Times adds a further 800,000 (assuming our articles are correct). Is that significant coverage? - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#What_is_.22multiple.22_sources.3F I think we can safely say that it is inaccurate to assume that two reliable sources are sufficient to keep an article ("AfD is very simple, two sources"). The better question is whether the sources indicate that the author is notable and we should be looking at WP:AUTHOR to see whether this person satisfies the notability criteria laid down there. As a reminder, the reason we have these detailed criteria is because there is no simple rule that says "X sources and you're in". I can't see her getting even close to satisfying any of the criteria laid down there. --regentspark (comment) 21:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said immediately above, two sources are not the minimum ("I have been corrected on that point"). But the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#What_is_.22multiple.22_sources.3F is very clear: there is no minimum number of sources, it could be one source, if it is strong enough - the number is irrelevant. So the question is why you are requiring more than these sources that have the widest circulation in India. The number doesn't matter, what else is needed other than some of the widest circulating newspapers in India? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who said "two sources" and "It's simple". Now, since that is not the case, your initial rationale is no longer valid. You need to come up with a reason for keeping the article that is grounded in policy and that is not based on the number of sources. For example, it would be helpful if you would point to something specific in WP:AUTHOR that indicates notability. --regentspark (comment) 01:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who doesn't respond to the rationale of sources in the widest circulated papers in India. You need to come up with a reason why not. For example, it would be helpful if you responded why sources in the most widely circulated papers in India is not considered notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GC, it should be clear by now that merely counting sources is not enough. You have to show that the coverage is significant and meaningful. The criteria set down in WP:AUTHOR are designed to help us figure that out. I'll flesh out my rationale above to keep the discussion grounded. --regentspark (comment) 12:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two newspapers are not "the most widely circulated papers in India" and in fact are not even the most widely circulated English language papers. You appear to be constructing an argument based on a false assertion, as you also did with the two-sources point. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some details of officially recognised circulation figures, please see this website. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India: "According to Audit Bureau of Circulations, it has the largest circulation among all English-language newspapers in the world, across all formats (broadsheet, tabloid, compact, Berliner and online)."

The Telegraph (Calcutta): "According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.. is the fourth most-widely read English newspaper in India"

Cites are in the linked articles. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are not able to see Economic Times ref, please when you land up on the main page of Economic Times, hit the back icon and the related write up will open. The write up is quite of a length! For (talk)The author is no doubt widely read and her books- rest all up to youAnanyaprasad (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I am not so adept with editing of Wikipedia, as I am not so well versed with it.Ananyaprasad (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing the independent and depth of coverage required for notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify on why the sources are not independent? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because an interview with the article subject is dependent upon responses from that subject? Because it is the usual PR push that occurs when an author has a new book published, and such things are often based on "who you know" (very significant in Indian society, btw)? Interviews can be useful, obviously, for verification of personal info in a BLP; but these are fundamentally PR pieces and we should prefer third-party assessments etc: that is, discussing her rather than discussing herself. I note that "depth of coverage" was also in the rationale of Stuartyeates. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Sitush, you would at least agree that they are some of the most widely circulated English-dailies in India? Besides, I think the minutiae of the circulation numbers are not so relevant. What matters is that many people read these. If a high school or a Village of 593 people in ukrain with no reliable sources can be kept, this article deserves an entry. But feel free to weigh in. Mr T^(Talk?) 15:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I have explained why above. A couple of million readership (not circulation, which is less) is nothing, especially when the stuff appears in supplement sections and - in the case of the Economic Times - it does not even appear in its flagship organ, which has a far bigger readership. In any event, the content of the interviews is PR fluff, as I have also explained previously. It is unfortunate, and you know that I did some work on the article at AfC, in an attempt to improve it but if we let something like this through then we'll have articles for every single author who has ever had a book reviewed/done a standard release interview etc. WP:AUTHOR exists for a reason and while it does have a get-out clause, which GC has been attempting to use, if we go the route that GC wants then we perhaps should be opening a discussion for removal of WP:AUTHOR entirely.

Btw, the WP:OSE essay explains the oddities that are geographical and schools articles. I don't agree with the approach to those but it is how it is. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A couple of million readership (not circulation, which is less) is nothing" - well I think it's something and it deserves a mention on Wikipedia. Who are we to decide whether or not that number is enough? Come on, readership of over a million people amounts to nothing? That is not the case dear. Mr T^(Talk?) 19:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, slippery slope is a logical fallacy and a derail to go into. Let's stick with the facts of this case: For some reason you disregard these papers which are among the most widely circulated papers in India - and the world. See (The Telegraph (Calcutta)) the second paragraph: "According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.. it is the fourth most-widely read English newspaper in India". Look at (The Times of India) where it says "According to Audit Bureau of Circulations, it has the largest circulation among all English-language newspapers in the world". Not just India, the world. I don't agree these pieces are "PR", it's the normal type of interview and profile piece found in periodicals used throughout Wikipedia. If these pieces were Press Releases I would agree with but they are not press releases, they are independent of the subject (the interview questions were made independent of the subject presumably). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous descriptions, both of source requirements and these two newspapers, have been grossly misleading and could affect outcomes here. Period. And still you mislead: The Economic Times is not The Times of India but rather a separate publication, with a tiny readership by comparison. It is this sort of distortion that I am uncomfortable with. Yes, we all make mistakes - no big deal - but you are persisting in them now and I cannot understand why this is so. - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this was also effectively a distortion. No-one with experience would trumpet the outcome of a noticeboard discussion after it had run for roughly three hours and was still open. I accept that you have just stricken your mention of "two" but what is going on here? Yes, people should read through entire discussions and should try to do their own research, but we all know that sometimes this does not happen and anyone reading the first few entries on this page would potentially be making a decision based on flawed information. Not the usual back-and-forth about what a policy does or does not say, but mis-statements of fact regarding outcomes and specific sources. It is no way to conduct an AfD but the issues are now so entangled that they would be nigh-impossible to excise. . - Sitush (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith and stick to the facts. If you think I am acting in bad faith and maliciously telling lies etc.. than open a case against me in AFD Noticeboard or somewhere, we'll examine both sides of the story. Otherwise, stop that kind of behavior during a content dispute, it doesn't reflect well on you. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Times of India is the parent company of Economic Times, the article is part of timesgroup.com and hosted on timesofindia.com URL. You are correct it's not the same paper, but a subscription to The Times website is apparently what gains access to the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I very deliberately did not accuse you of telling lies. You are putting words into my mouth. And, no, a subscription to the Times website is not necessary, or at least not from here: the back button works, as someone else said above. There is a world of difference between being the ToI and the ET and I am glad that the penny is finally dropping at your end. A bit late, but we are getting there. Now, if you retract all those statements that confuse the ToI with the ET perhaps we can wrap up this issue (another pun, alas). - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete insufficiently independent sources to establish notability. The WP:GNG calls for reliable independent sources. Vcessayist (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Tepid keep — Since there is no minimum number as per-requisite for inclusion and the reliability is contingent upon the strength of the sources cited, I think this article ought to not be deleted for this particular reason. Plus, the sources which are there are otherwise considered reliable. And I think, per WP:BEFORE, this article is not unsalvageable. BTW, it's my impersonal view (I know the deletion doesn't reflect badly on me). Mr T^(Talk?) 08:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just weighing in here to explain about the "cite kill" I'd done earlier with the article. On a side note, I removed the parts that went to Goodreads and various merchant sites from EL.

1. [1] I'd kept this one on the article since it's in-depth and is by a newspaper that's considered to be trustworthy.
2. [2] I wasn't overly familiar with this specific site but it was a nice in-depth interview so I left it.
3. [3] This is a link to Google Books for Singh's Love's Journey. It's primary and can't show notability, but more importantly it was one of six sources that followed the first sentence. It was source overkill and that she wrote this was mentioned in the sources that remained on the article, so I removed it.
4. [4] This one comes up as a broken link, but I don't really remember deleting this one. As long as this shows up for someone and shows that it's more than just a picture, listing for a signing, or a brief mention, I have no problem with this being re-added.
5. [5] This was just a group of pictures at a book signing and couldn't show notability, although I did move it down to EL.
6. [6] This article was incredibly dodgy looking and content is user submitted. That its content has changed since the last time I saw the page doesn't help much. The last time I saw it, it only listed the Wikipedia article for the college Singh attended and stated that she's listed there.
7. "Rashmi Singh Author" National Daily. I couldn't find a whisper of this article on the internet except for in this article. Considering the amount of dodgy sources, I removed it. If someone can prove that this article exists and that it's in-depth, I don't see why it can't be added back. I would just like some proof that it actually exists, as the only thing we really have to go by is the newspaper name and supposed article title- no date of publishing from what I can see.
8. [7] This one went to a pay site for the Times of India. Despite this, I left it up.
9. Debolina, Sen "A Pristine Surmise", The Economic Times, Kolkatta, 1 July 2011. This is the same article as the previous one, so I removed it.
10. [8] Non-notable blog. Blogs are rarely usable as sources and the only time they are usable, they have to be by someone who is an absolute authority, which almost always translates to the individual being notable in some context themselves. Not always, but almost always, which is why I think I've only seen one blog used as a source in my time here on Wikipedia as far as books go.
11. [9] Google books. I removed it because it's primary and what it's sourcing has already been mentioned in the articles that were left. No need to source it with a primary source.
12. [10] Non-notable book blog. It's in the EL section, though.
13. [11] This site sells Singh's books. That means that they have a conflict of interest and no matter how big the corporation may or may not be, once they have that COI the reliability of the source is suspect because it's in their best interests to represent someone in a particularly good light. I'd say the same thing if she'd done a review through Amazon.com or Barnes & Nobles.
14. The Bihar Q2 2011. page no. 41 This is another one that lacks some information to really give any information on the article or how in-depth it is. Like the other article, if someone can prove that it's in-depth and focuses on Singh then there's no reason it can't be re-added with the full article information.

I'm not trying to be difficult and as I said on the talk page, I'm impressed that enough people have worked on it enough to where it got to where it is now. The earlier versions of the article were pretty bad. I actually wasn't going to nominate it for AfD since it had a good start and had people that were working on it rather hard, trying to find sources. I do agree that the sources here are very light, but there's the potential for more to be added once it can be at least somewhat proven that they're in-depth and have all of the source info posted. If someone can get the broken image Yahoo link to work, that'd push it to four sources, which has been shown to be enough in the past for various articles to show notability. Once someone can fully provide all of the info for the two non-Internet newspaper articles, that'd bring it to six. As far as issues of promotion and COI go, that isn't always a reason to delete an article. If you can show that there's some notability going on, measures should be done to improve rather than delete. Like I said, there's at least 3 sources that just need to be validated somehow and then there'd be no question of notability. I'm leaning towards a weak keep but haven't made my mind up yet.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to [12] the Yahoo link was in regards to "Giving out degrees, in a convocation ceremony" so it may or may not be in depth about the author. (BTW thank you for taking the time to list these with rationales). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found The Bihar Q2 2011. page no. 41. Looks like a solid source with biographical details. The magazine has an Editorial board. It's web-only but that's not unusual. It's a house organ of the Bihar Society. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a press release-cum-book review. The press release bit counts for nothing much (the usual fluff) and the society does not have any great presence. The editorial board consists of, well, who knows? They do not even share the same domain name in their numerous email addresses. Of course, Patna is in Bihar and that local connection is enough for publication. I'd be interested to know whether the thing is still being produced because the edition in question was their second. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that they have 125 Twitter followers as of now. Which appears to include many names from among those who are associated with producing the magazine. I am not quite sure whether I am missing something here but their Twitter page links to this, which appears to be the first edition of their magazine, whereas what I would like to see is whether or not it got past issue 2. - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't really a book review - the article is unsigned and the PR bumpf is followed by an excerpt. There is some info about the mag's aspirations/policy etc here. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that it's a Press Release? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is that why is it so important to delete this article as opposed to conforming it to WP-standards and policies. This article is not unsalvageable and we have many articles without any references and yet kept based on the hope that they might be worthy of an inclusion or because of the fact that the problems are surmountable. Why are we arbitrarily raising the bar when it comes to this subject? Why are we splitting hairs about whether or not articles in some of the most widely circulated newspapers with over one million readership is enough to establish notability of a person? We don't ask these questions of entirely subjective importance every time we include an article about a random person. All BLP articles must have one reliable source. This has multiple reliable sources. Hence, what's the problem? We may work on it and improve it. I don't think this article is really deserving a deletion. I don't even understand why it was AFDed in the first place. There are issues, yes, but we can resolve it. Why a deletion is necessary for overcoming these issues is what I don't get. Mr T^(Talk?) 07:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (lost my web connection) That I did not capitalise "press release" as you did speaks volumes, if you'll excuse the pun. The information presented is clearly similar to that trotted out as publisher's blurb in publicity info sheets when a book is released. Surely you have seen these potted biographies before, often on the rear of a paperback or on the inner face of a hardback dustjacket? Add to that, there is no proper review of the book and, well, it doesn't take a genius ... Now, to get to the real points, was this source an amateur operation or a professionally produced reliable source? Is it still going or was the second edition its last? Who wrote the piece and was it solicited or submitted? Who are the editorial board? Etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokiogirl79, about this source above you've written that the citation was moved to external links because it's a "non-notable" book blog. Are you telling me we have to try and establish the notability of the sources too before trying to establish the notability of the subject with the sources? If so, then it might result in an infinite regress. I don't understand why the sources themselves are made to run through the gauntlet of "notability"; I thought we were to determine whether or not the sources are reliable. How does the notability criteria apply to the references themselves in an article about another topic, is beyond me. Am I wrong? If I am not mistaken, the book blog was not a primary source. Mr T^(Talk?) 07:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively, yes. If the source is not reliable then obviously it cannot be used to assert notability. Otherwise, someone could create hundreds of websites, for example, and then claim notability because they are mentioned on all of them. Anthony Wile is an example of someone whose name crops up quite a lot but whose article has nonetheless been recently deleted because the sources simply did not make the mark - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not addressing the concern I raised, Sitush. Tokiogirl79 didn't prove it's unreliable, she simply informed that it's non-notable. That's my concern. How the notability criterion, instead of reliability, applies to the sources themselves is what I don't get. Focusing on whether or not Economic Times is itself notable, falls in the same category of concern by the way. There is no guideline/policy in my knowledge, which this article unequivocally violates nor is it unsalvageable. Yet, you are insisting on its deletion, why? Mr T^(Talk?) 09:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. Perhaps you are confusing Wikipedia's concept of notability with the more general use of the term. There are notable companies, for example, that only produce food products for supermarket chains etc. They can be massive - seriously massive - producers and highly significant in the supply chain etc, but never have an article here because their name only appears as "passing mentions" in, for example, directories. (This has actually happened, btw, it is not a hypothetical example). - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Passing mention" - you use that term quite a lot. But just to let you know, I don't think the mentions are trivial or passing and also they do not serve as grounds for nominating an article for notability while wherever the subject is indeed mentioned you label it as "passing mention". Come on. Why is it such big an issue? She has been mentioned by The Economic Times, OneIndia, The Telegraph, The Bihar Q2 2011, Spectral hues, etc. None of them are passing mentions. Now, you seem to argue that none of them are reliable because of relatively small readership, albeit some of us don't agree. Mr T^(Talk?) 07:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I argued that, for example, the Economic Times or Telegraph is "unreliable"? - Sitush (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mrt3366, and as your talk page history reveals, you are among the people expressing "keep" in this discussion who simply do not understand policy/guidelines and who are obfuscating things by making false charges etc. It needs to stop. I realise that people have to learn etc but these false statements are making life difficult for the poor soul who has to close the discussion and, alas, will probably cause a "no consensus". - Sitush (talk)

"you are among the people expressing "keep" in this discussion who simply do not understand policy/guidelines and who are obfuscating things by making false charges etc." - I am still trying understand certain guidelines, yes, but what needs to stop here and right now is ad hominem approach while arguing. I have not made any "false statements". You're the one who is stretching this unnecessarily.

Who does understand every guideline/essay (s)he comes across in Wikipedia? I bet the number is very small. The guidelines themselves are not written in stone nor are they complete. That's why we have so many RFCs and a plethora of discussions. I am at least trying to understand the guidelines which I don't get now and I don't make it a secret. I don't hide my inabilities. And I don't wish to continue quibbling with you here. I have said what I had to say on the subject this article should not be deleted, with some effort all the issues can be surmounted. Mr T^(Talk?) 05:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not enough that a page have a few sources, hastily added after the fact. It also needs to be WP:NEUTRAL and actually based on those sources. If the original page was based on original research or self-sourced promotion, to take something created as advertising (and repeatedly re-submitted to WP:AFC under multiple titles with multiple userid's), to stick a WP:CITE tag on after the fact "oh, by the way, she was mentioned in the Times" and expect that this simple addition will magically transform blatant self-promotion into a balanced article is naïve in the extreme. It doesn't work that way, despite the tendency of WP:AFC reviewers to tag "needs WP:RS" instead of biting an author by asking the WP:COI self-promotion cease. K7L (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To address some of the issues, I've re-written a good chunk of the article. Just to be clear, I was actually pretty vocally against this article in the beginning so I have no agenda to promote the author.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning your neutrality. The only users which look a bit odd are user:rrashmissingh, user:Love's Journey and user:ananyaprasad - all of which appear to be single-purpose accounts. commons:image:Rashmi Singh Writer.jpg, for instance, lists ananyaprasad as author but claims "Previously published: https://plus.google.com/u/0/105801147709572890718/posts/cji9WLQGJgr " where the external link points to Rashmi Singh's Google+ page. That doesn't necessarily mean that ananya is rashmi - maybe she's someone who just works for rashmi (or her publisher) taking photos, who knows? K7L (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Pustak Mahal are such stingy people who would never keep a PR for their author. Surf the internet and see, all their Writers are crying!. I just happened to be in the World Book Fair, where she too was there. That's it. Probably she might have forgotten also as many were taking photos. autographs etc. And this one was not with Pustak Mahal but with Pigeon Books. I then while uploading the pic got confused what does it mean, whether the pic has been published before or not? As a similar pic was at Rashmi Singh's Google page so I gave that link- my naivety, you can say as I am a newbie and don't know much about all this. Ananyaprasad (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I'd mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pustak Mahal, this publisher has had a PR in the past who has been editing the article on Pustak Mahal here. user:Aman Arora PR is listed on LinkedIn as having worked for Pustak Mahal for half of 2010 before leaving to join a competitor. K7L (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only thing I can vouch for is that the users have repeatedly denied that they're anything but a fan of Singh's. I agree that it does sort of look a little dodgy, but they've been made aware of COI repeatedly so there's not much else to be done as far as that goes other than to just accept it at face value unless someone can prove otherwise. In any case, I was given another news source to put on the article, which I added. It looks to be a brief article in a local Lucknow paper/magazine. It's on the author's blog and while normally I'm of the "no way" variety when it comes to anything placed on a website that has anything to do with an author, this is an image of the clipping rather than a posting of the content, which does make a bit of a difference because it's more verifiable to see the clipping directly. [13] I've added it to the article, so it can be looked at as a source.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:AUTHOR. No substantial coverage in serious reliable independent sources. I've looked at the sources, and have to agree that they are low quality tabloids and insufficient for establishing notability. The "reporting" seems to be a rehash of press releases or other promotional material, and the interviews really don't add much because of the low quality of the publications they are in. My own searches turned up nothing promising, either. Perhaps in the future, this person might deserve a stand-alone article, but, based on the available sources, that hasn't happened yet. WP:TOOSOON applies here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As Economic Times, The Telegraph are not low quality publications. They are India's Times equivalent. Yes it is true that sometimes any Tom, Dick, and Harry are too interviwed but I don't think, one would be interviwed so many times! JUst think logically, why would so many interviews come uo of a non notable person? And if she is herself doing all this then, why not the other newspapers in parallel with The Economic Times and The Telegraph. Think this before deleting this page. Wikipedia has made its name and is respected worldwide. As I have been asked not to ask why other stuff exists, I will not ask, but yes if deleted, comparison would be made and many eyebrow raised! Rest all up tp you all obviously Ananyaprasad (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:TOOSOON does not apply for an author I guess and if it does also then it is more than a year back when her Economic Times review about her book was published. Her one book as I have already mentioned above is in Worldcat. So a request to all that before making any effort to delete this article, read Wikipedia first.Ananyaprasad (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Next Dominus please read this about The Economic Times The Economic Times is an English-language Indian daily newspaper published by the Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd.. It is the world's second most widely read English-language business newspaper, after the Wall Street Journal.[2] The Economic Times was started in 1961. It is the most popular and widely read financial daily in India, read by more than 8 lakh (800,000) people. The Economic Times is published simultaneously from 12 cities—Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata, Lucknow, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Ahmedabad, Nagpur, Chandigarh, and PuneAnanyaprasad (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"WorldCat is a union catalog which itemizes the collections of 72,000 libraries in 170 countries and territories..." I presume this means that, if out of the seventy-two thousand libraries, just one has one copy of one of her books, that would qualify as "listed in Worldcat" even though that comes nowhere near meeting WP:AUTHOR? (In practice, hitting exactly one participating library would not be easy... maybe the "History of XYZ County" as a print-on-demand book with one copy on the shelf of XYZ County Library as an item of specialised, local interest or a university thesis placed on the bookshelves of that university and then forgotten?) K7L (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I can't find any book by this author on WorldCat. I found "love's journey" but it was by Ethel Clifford. --regentspark (comment) 15:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Maybe you can check this link http://www.worldcat.org/title/taming-the-restless-mind-winning-tips-unfolded/oclc/775646688?loc=

I know what you are trying your best to seek out the notability of the author. Actually it was mentioned that none of her books are on Worldcat. So hence this link. Maybe it helps. And Tokyogirl has already mentioned that how difficult it is for the INdian authors, specially females to make it to the news etc and respected libraries.. So perhaps you agree.. Ananyaprasad (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem. Your link resolves to Alibris which is a bookseller not a library. And, unfortunately, even Alibris doesn't actually have the book to sell (zero available copies), they're just using the ISBN to indicate that the book exists (we already know it does). Having an ISBN does not mean anything since any book can have one. --regentspark (comment) 16:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I check this link and get "Sorry, we cannot find libraries in India that have this item. The nearest locations with libraries that have the item include: California". Substitute China or Canada for "India" and the result is the same... Worldcat finds one copy in Emeryville CA US and that's it. If Buzz Lightyear happens to have that copy checked out this week? There are no others on Earth. K7L (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's worse than that. The one result for Emeryville points not to a lending library but to Alibris, an online network of independent booksellers which does not have the book. Effectively, a Worldcat search ends with this as unobtanium. An author search launched from this Worldcat page gives plenty of books... by some other author or authors with similar names. Nothing useful here. K7L (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, maybe whatever you are saying is true but the issue is here is not that if her books are on Worldcat or not- the issue is about the sources and the article has it. Ananyaprasad (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as has already been pointed out by several of the editors participating in this AfD, the sources are poor in quality and do little to establish notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not all. Some very notable editors have pointed out the The Economic Times source and The Telegraphsource along with others very valuable! Ananyaprasad (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent because they merely repeat the person's words. These are fluff interviews and the sources are meaningless. --regentspark (comment) 14:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No substantial coverage in serious reliable independent sources fails WP:GNG . Mtking ^(edits) 19:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We need to worry about FUTON bias. There is a good chance Indian reliable sources are mostly not online, and what is online represents the tip. Print sources are acceptable if they are reliable, full citations are provided, and if editors are willing to post relevant excerpts under fair-use when requested to. Not voting keep since, well, I can't just assume there are print sources based on interviews in newspapers. Churn and change (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2012 (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.