Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akil Kumarasamy


 * 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 no consensus. Consensus on current notability seems to be a bit murky, but there are signs that this person's notability might become more clear in the near future.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 18:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Akil Kumarasamy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable writer; author of one book, that has received a non-notable award. Sources cited are primary, and a search finds nothing better, that is actually about her and not about her book (the best I could find is an article in Telegraph India, but it's an interview). Fails WP:GNG / WP:AUTHOR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Dismal swamp, indeed. Per nom, award not notable, coverage not notable, subject not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete There's a lot of coverage of her debut book, which I had expected to include enough biographical material to meet GNG, but it looks like the book reviews have focused on just the book itself for now. signed,Rosguill talk 14:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY due to revisions and additions of sources, including reviews and an interview with commentary on her as an author, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC and WP:NEXIST. Per WP:AUTHOR, she has created [...] a [...] well-known work, as demonstrated by the multiple 'best of' and 'recommended'-style lists her book Half Gods has appeared on, e.g. Scroll.in, Village Voice, PEN America, New York Times, USA Today and Redbook, and in addition, the book has been the primary subject of multiple independent [...] reviews, e.g. New York Times, New Yorker, Hindustan Times, Publishers Weekly, and The Hindu. Per WP:BASIC, there is an interview with AAWW Magazine that includes commentary on her as a writer, and WP:BASIC also notes, Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject, so biographical information can continue to be added to the article from interviews that have found her worthy of notice, including from Scroll.in, The Telegraph India, and The Massachusetts Review, as well as at least one other at least partially primary source that appears to WP:NEXIST (i.e. the NYT review notes there is a 2017 interview available), but her notability as an author seems supported by the WP:SECONDARY sources and the WP:AUTHOR guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC) There is also this review/interview from Open Magazine that includes biographical information and commentary about her as an author. Beccaynr (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY due to the work done by Beccaynr. VV 11:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I also think reviews that have been added since my previous comment: Los Angeles Review of Books, Kirkus Reviews, and The Millions, provide significant biographical context in addition to discussing the book, and the interviews help make this more clear. Beccaynr (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Award winning WP:AUTHOR. pburka (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment AUTHOR doesn't actually mention 'award winning' as a satisfying criterion. WP:ANYBIO does, but it requires the award to be "well-known and significant", which a non-notable college award isn't. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The Annual Bard Fiction Prize includes a $30,000 cash award and an appointment as a writer in residence at Bard College for a semester, so it seems to help support her notability per WP:AUTHOR #4 ("won significant critical attention"), even if it does not strictly meet WP:ANYBIO. Beccaynr (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I thought this was such a clear keep that it didn't require further explanation. Half Gods is indisputably notable. It was widely reviewed and won several awards. Wikipedia should include an article about either the book or its author. pburka (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Comment WP:NAUTHOR is quite specific that to be considered notable as an author, someone should be "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" - book reviews (esp. IMHO in book review sites) don't reflect this, or reflect "significant critical attention". Book reviews contribute to the notability of a book not an author. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:AUTHOR#3 specifically mentions reviews as contributing to the notability of the author, as discussed above, and the volume of critical attention, per #4, appears to be "significant." Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, c'mon now. WP:AUTHOR#3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. IN ADDITION..." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I edited the highlighting in my first comment to clarify that I was quoting "in addition" from WP:AUTHOR#3; and to further clarify why I think the book is 'well-known,' it is due to the coverage by multiple national news outlets in India and the United States. Beccaynr (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Question When reading WP:ANYBIO, do you also interpret it to require all three (a well-known and significant award or honor, part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, and an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary)? I have interpreted criteria in the same section as WP:ANYBIO, including WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENT as having a similar implied "or" due to the nature of the factors listed. Beccaynr (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see both guidelines as OR lists. But I also see 'a well-known and significant award or honor' (WP:ANYBIO) in books as a national award rather than a college bursary or award. FWIW! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable at this time. There is no doubt she has been noticed for her first novel, but its early days, but the award isn't prestigious.   scope_creep Talk  21:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment After her debut short story collection, she also has written a novel that is set to be published, so her work as an author is more developed than one major published work. Beccaynr (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If the novel hasn't been published yet, wouldn't that just make this WP:TOOSOON? I think that it's extremely likely that the subject will be notable in the not too distant future, but a published book and a yet-unpublished book do not an oeuvre make. signed,Rosguill talk 15:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, because the WP:AUTHOR guideline only requires one work, and Kumarasamy has already published multiple works - her first book is a collection of short stories, several of which had been previously published in literary journals. The upcoming novel emphasizes how her career appears to be well-established, and the Bard College prize/appointment as a writer-in-residence also helps emphasize how she is regarded as an important figure [...] by peers per WP:AUTHOR#1, and similarly therefore not WP:TOOSOON for an article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At least half the text of this article is about her first book, which I think we all agree is notable. A reasonable alternative to deletion would be to rename the article to Half Gods and reorganize it slightly to focus on the book rather than the author. But see User:Pburka/Sole authors of notable books for why I think it's preferable to keep the article as is. pburka (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm open to the argument that the short stories count as multiple works, but I think that suggesting that AUTHOR should routinely allow biographies of writers with only one published work is a stretch. We're intentionally vague with our bounds on stuff like this to allow for exceptions in the case of authors whose single work is of immense fame and significance (e.g. To Kill a Mockingbird), but unless the single work in question is a household name classic I don't think a single well-reviewed work is sufficient. All in all, I think I'm leaning towards neutral here: I'm not fully convinced by the keep arguments, but they do have some merit and I think that it's pretty clear that it's only a matter of time for the subject to unambiguously cross the threshold of notability. signed,Rosguill talk 15:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as per arguments put forward by Beccaynr. This goes a long way in correcting Wikipedia's POC bio blindspots. JeanPaulMontmartre (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2021 (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.