Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anindita Ghose


 * 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Anindita Ghose

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Most of the references are written by Anindita Ghose herself. Some reference about her book The Illuminated review. Written only 1book, no indepth coverages about her, she is failing WP:NAUTHOR Nomadwikiholic (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

*Keep Book reviews, more than 2 satisfies WP:NAUTHOR. Here is, , , , , ,. These are all for one novel, "The illuminated". She has another novel which is not included on the article. There is enough to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR.  scope_creep Talk  12:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, you mention another novel, and I looked for it, but only found works by a different author with a similar name. Can you add further information about the other novel? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Will do. I'll take a look.    scope_creep Talk  09:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * She mentions here that she has second book but hasn't published it yet.
 * .


 * Its been a year almost since she mentioned it, but it could much longer before it is published. She mentioned details about when she did the Hawthornden fellowship in 2019 in an interview but I can't locate it. I dont know how that colours the argument. It is more than borderline for somebody that has so many reviews on her first book.   scope_creep Talk  09:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, scope creep - from my view, her saying I’ve begun to work on my second novel. What I can say is that it is set in Bombay—a city I know most intimately seems too WP:CRYSTALBALL at this time, and because it is her talking about it in an interview, it also seems promotional. By contrast (not precedent), at the time of the Akil Kumarasamy AfD, that article noted she had completed her next book and secured a publisher . Other differences between the two articles include that there was no book article for the clearly notable book, Kumarasamy had won 2 awards and was a finalist for another award for her first book, her previously-published work had received some critical attention from one review, and substantive biographical information was available. With regard to WP:AUTHOR#3, because this standard asks for reviews in addition to one book being significant or well-known, I interpret this as an indication that several 'best of' lists, a micro review, and six full reviews, , , , , only supports the notability of The Illuminated at this time. This article often links to her own work to verify career information, e.g. this  is used to support text that says she joined the editorial staff at Vogue India (it does not). I think this can be a redirect with possibilities, but is not clearly possible enough at this time to support an article that so closely duplicates the book article and otherwise relies on primary sources to verify biographical and career information. Beccaynr (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean. Very cool analysis as per. I didn't actually see the book article, the book is notable. I noticed she does write and interview folk for various journals which has been mixed in somewhat and doesn't add much. It could be redirected quite happily as there is not sufficient standalone coverage at the moment to make the author notable.  Changing to Redirect.    scope_creep Talk  11:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism,  and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to satisfy AUTHOR with the reviews of the novel above, some are better than others as sourcing, but we've got enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If someone write one Novel and if the person gets enough coverages then the person is meeting WP:NAUTHOR ? Nomadwikiholic (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read third criteria of WP:AUTHOR which says "creating a significant " not more than two significant. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for teaching me. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: as WP:SK. Very clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR as she created major role in creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work which has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: @User:Nomadwikiholic She fails WP:GNG but passes WP:NAUTHOR and please note WP:SNG is not WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know the difference. Nice to meet you and learn from your experience. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously . Additionally, while the nominator might well be correct about the COI, the article seems to be neutral and well referenced. pburka (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd also support a merge into The Illuminated. pburka (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Illuminated. Multiple reviews of a debut novel supports notability of the book per WP:NBOOK, but there do not appear to be independent and reliable sources supporting WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability beyond this one event. This article appears to be a nearly duplicate promotional article for the author due to a lack of multiple reviews for a second book and a lack of support for the significance of the first book (e.g. major bestseller lists, notable awards, etc). See e.g. the Akil Kumarasamy AfD. Beccaynr (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, { {ping&#124;ClydeFranklin }} (t/c) 21:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - here is similar AfD. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Changed the comment above to Redirect. is right as usual. The book is certainly notable but I don't think the author is yet. Looking at the references, there is an interview or two but nothing of a WP:SECONDARY nature indicating true notability. Probably WP:TOOSOON as the books seems to be stellar and its only a matter of time before she becomes really well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by scope_creep (talk • contribs)
 * Keep as I'd say that the existing sources show that Ghose is notable enough to have a page. Those who say otherwise are sadly mistaken in this case.Historyday01 (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you talk about existing source then I'll say those existing sources are talking about her book not about her. Not a single source is in-depth. So I think this should be deleted or Redirected to The Illuminated. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep as notable writer of India.Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have updated the page to address concerns of overlaps with The Illuminated page and added more references. FactChecker0301 (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please write how she is notable. According to news coverages her book The Illuminated is notable. All the references are talking about her book, not about her. So need more in-depth news coverages about her to satisfy WP:GNG. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * NAUTHOR says that a person is notable if he done a major role in creating any significant work (significant work means that these works should be subject of reviews and news articles) and in this case Ghose has done major role by writing the book. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 07:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * According to those reviews the book(also the author) is notable but at same time with same reviews two topic can't be notable. So in that case only 1 topic should stay on mainspace and another topic should be redirected. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nomadwikiholic Which guideline of wikipedia says that "at same time with same reviews two topic can't be notable" and "only 1 topic should stay on mainspace and another topic should be redirected"? ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 11:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The guideline is WP:AUTHOR#3, which requires more than several reviews for a single book to be "significant or well-known". The guideline says In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The WP:NBOOK guideline outlines what can support notability of a book, and while some of those criteria could help support "significant or well-known" in addition to reviews (such as major literary awards or bestseller lists), they are not demonstrated here.
 * Notability is more than WP:GNG or an WP:SNG - it also requires consideration of WP:NOT policy - and the policy "Wikipedia is not a means of promotion" appears to apply here, to exclude a nearly-duplicate article sourced with the same reviews, cites to her own work, and interviews without much secondary content (so no WP:BASIC notability, either), from the mainspace encyclopedia at this time. A redirect means the history is preserved and it can be restored and edited in the future, after notability is supported according to guidelines and policy. Beccaynr (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, per WP:BLP1E, Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article, although it is not clear to me that there is substantial content to merge at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article subject satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. The reviews also support the subject’s notability, which among other policies meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. There is sufficient WP:SIGCOV by independent secondary WP:RS to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. Ultimately, WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR are met. If the subject failed these, then there might be grounds for deletion, but as I laid out in detail above, WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR are satisfied as a policy based rationale for keeping. Shawn Teller (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Shawn Teller, how does she meet GNG? JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect, per Beccaynr. I agree the lack of coverage in combination with NOT and BLP1E indicate a standalone on the author is not warranted. JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep absolutely passes the notability criteria. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2023 (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.