Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Paperboy's Fable (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus is that the book is not notable since Kirkus and the Forbes and HuffPo blogs are considered not reliable. The author may be notable but the book cannot inherit the author's notability except in particular circumstances (as noted on WP:NBOOK). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A Paperboy's Fable
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Repeatedly recreated as promotion (see also Sockpuppet investigations/Editor2626744‎). Fails WP:NBOOK. Only reliable source is a Kirkus review, every other source found is "contributor" churnalism, listicles, or veiled PR. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: The reliability of Kirkus has been brought into question quite frequently and one editor that I hold as probably one of the leading authorities on Wikipedia as far as book related sourcing goes,, has repeatedly stated that it's an unreliable source. I'll see what I can find, but offhand I'm not finding much. I initially found this Forbes link, but upon closer scrutiny it has two issues - the first is that it's written by the author himself and the second is that it looks to be one of the various blogs that gets posted by Forbes and not a Forbes article itself. The former is enough to make it a primary source, although the latter is something that would disqualify it as well. More sourcing might be found via the WP:INDIA news search, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He's from Macon, Georgia, so I don't think WP:INDIA would be much help. According to this from 2012, about 80% of Forbes articles are from "contributors", and receive no editing at all. I suspect that's gotten worse, also. They claim to make the distinction clear, but the overuse of these articles on Wikipedia speaks for itself. Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that some of the India sources would cover him, since he is of Indian descent. They'll do that on occasion, although of course it's far less likely when someone isn't born in India. (Although I will admit that I didn't immediately know that the guy wasn't from India.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  00:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Kirkus has been worthless for notability for many years--they review on request, and expect payment "Kirkus promises you a review in 7–9 weeks for $425. You can purchase an expedited review for $575, and they will deliver it in 4–6 weeks") . Libraries no longer use it much, as can be shown from Worldcat, because only 32 librarieshold the book, which is absurdly low for the genre.  The publisher is a secondary publisher for Simon and Schuster for books that don;;'t fit on their main list, but it is not a vanity publisher.  An award for a book from Entrepreneur Magazine is meaningless for notability . If this gets on the NYT best seller list, then will be time for an article. WP:NOTYET. Writing article on books like this is promotionalism   DGG ( talk ) 14:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, as kirkus has been reviewing books for many years, i don't believe all their reviews are without merit, (especially the ones that are less then flattering:)), anyway also found this review from The Mill Magazine - "How To Invest In Your Startup .. Check out A Paperboy's Fable: The 11 Principles of Success, by Deep Patel. It is a charming story that teaches many extremely complex business principles in a way that is engaging and fun.", but even if this is ok as a source there still needs to be more. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where among the many deleted article talk pages about this person it was, but I looked into Mill Magazine closer and came to the conclusion that it's not a reliable source. I'll rehash in depth it if needed, but briefly it's published by a Market Style Media, which is strictly an advertising and promotion company that pushes local marketing, not journalism. That article closes with "All in all, I would definitely encourage anybody..." but doesn't actually give a byline! Who is doing the "encouraging"? I suspect it's Patel himself, but regardless, that's one of many red flags that show it's not a good source at all. Grayfell (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: The book has also been reviewed in several Huffington Post articles, all of which have an editorial review. One is written by a NYT bestseller.
 * The Huffington Post - "How a High School Student Wrote and Published a Book at Age 16."
 * The Huffington Post - "What a Teenager Can Teach You About Success."
 * The Huffington Post (French edition):  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progalaxy (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We just had a lengthy, lengthy discussion at the SPI about how Forbes is unreliable, do you really think "Huffington Post's The Blog" is going to be any better? MeiMei Fox is a coauthor of a memoir by someone else. Her profile even says she's a ghostwriter, so emphasizing her NYT book is misleading. Grayfell (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * HuffPo blogs aren't considered to be RS on Wikipedia for the most part, as they don't undergo any sort of editorial oversight by the HuffPo, at least none that would make it the equivalent of an article written by one of the journalists for the main site or a newspaper article written elsewhere. Now as far as the author's qualifications, sometimes this can work in the source's favor but it's not a guarantee that the source is reliable because a blog post is still considered to be a self-published source. You'd have to show where there's coverage to show that Fox's work specifically with the HuffPo is considered to be notable and authoritative - her other work being notable doesn't automatically make this reliable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  01:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The claim to notability of this book rests too much on a source shown not to be so reliable as we once thought it to be, and I cannot find enough coverage elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, Kirkus I knew about. Forbes is a real eye-opener for me. Anyway, this "business fable" is (rather unsurprisingly) non-notable, when the only bona fide independent RS are considered. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Looks like the author has received more coverage than his book did: IANS Live, India New England News, Indian Eagle, APSE, India West, News89.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  17:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable. Blythwood (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- fails WP:NBOOK. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2016 (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.