Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chayathirai


 * 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. W.marsh 02:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Chayathirai


Because Chayathirai and The Coloured Curtain only get 12 distinct Google hits when combined with "-wikipedia" and those were for booksellers. In addition, the author himself his name only gets 175 Google hits in total, this article included, of which 61 are sufficiently distinct from one another to merit listing. At least one bookseller-hit only mentioned it in passing as a "similar item", and there is at least one "this only appeared in links pointing to this page", and then, of course, there are the Wikipedia clones. Only one version of Amazon.com has it according to this Google search, and it appears that no one from anywhere has cared to review it in all this time. Also, Chayathirai "best novel" tamil nadu gets me 8 hits from Wikipedia, its clones and some blurbage from three sites that are selling the book. One site even tells you that that's just what the publisher says (that it won the "Best Novel Award" from the Tamil Nadu Government). I am beginning to doubt that the Government of Tamil Nadu actually bothers with such things, because of the results of "best novel award" tamil nadu government 2/3 Chayathirai (the Wikipedia article and a website that sells the book) and 1/3 clear reference to the Best Novel Award said to be given by the Académie Française. Rmky87 06:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ter e nce Ong 07:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 07:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 07:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Strong Keep : Please note that Indian Authors are Books are not represented fully in Internet. Just because something is not found in Google (or in many occasions, it is not properly searched) it does not make an author or work non-notable. When Google cannot be used to determine notability for Indian related content, nominating an article based on Google Hits alone does not augur well for the Encyclopedia project. Please note that "non-notable" in not synonymous with "I don't know" The author is a well known person in literary circles and the book has been included in the syllabi of many universities here This books satisfies the WP Guidelines for Inclusion   Doctor Bruno    15:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Comment I am beginning to doubt that the Government of Tamil Nadu actually bothers with such things No need to doubt. Tamil Nadu government gives awards for best books. Hope your doubt is cleared now. it appears that no one from anywhere has cared to review it in all this time As already told, Indian languages are underrepresented in Internet. Also most of the Websites and reviews use hundreds of fonts and that is not searchable.
 * Weak keep Delete as later comment below The article's messy history (deprodded twice) includes removing what was IMO copyvio text from an independent review in India Today by Dr. Prema Nanda Kumar. There's also some international context. The English version of the novel is listed, for example, at University of Illinois at Springfield, with the author under another spelling "Cupraparatimaniyan". Mereda 08:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Comment There's an official source here that verifies the existence of Tamil Nadu state government prizes for best Tamil books. Mereda 11:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Believe me, I'm aware of the "not-searchable" thing, after trying to search http://www.indiatodaygroup.com for "POMMEELEAN"'s review. I have not yet found evidence that this "POMMEELEAN" ever won anything from the Sahitya Akademi and I have to go. There isn't another way to transliterate that, is there?--Rmky87 17:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The only five Google hits for "Pommeelean" are Wikipedia and her clones. And the Sahitya Akademi website is Google-searchable. And I've finally found the part where it talks about the "TAMIL SANGA PALAGAI - KURALPEEDAM".--Rmky87 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh, and no one cared to review "Cupraparatimaniyan"'s The Coloured Curtain on eBay, Shopzilla, Rediff (whose tagline is "India's online books and gift store", by the way), and that last hit is just a place that helps people find places to buy books.--Rmky87 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, as not everything in the third developing world is yet on the Internet.Sharkface217 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That is true, yes, but I am not claiming zero Google hits. I am claiming damn near zero Google hits outside of bookdealers and Wikipedia clones (see my Comments over at the author's AfD page for details). Notable Tamil authors may not get as much English-language Internet mention as European authors do, but what they do get is definitely meaningful. Take Dr. Prema Nandakumar, for example (she is likely the "Dr. Prema Nanda Kumar mentioned in this earliest versions of this article, and yes, I was looking for Google-searchable proof that she was real). She may only get 142 distinct Google hits, but they're on the level of The Hindu articles centered around her or featuring her in the "main cast of characters", so to speak. And you know what? Her stuff is available on the American version of Amazon.com. I didn't see a single mention of either Chayathirai or Subrabharathimanian in The Hindu. Not even the most trivial. Don't you find that strange?--Rmky87 01:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and one last thing: India Today may be members only, but it is very Google-searchable if you know what you're doing. And you know what else? There was absolutely no mention of Chayathirai in any of their pages! The same goes for Subrabharathimanian! Isn't that interesting?--Rmky87 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm impressed! And since no-one has found verification of anything positive, like Dr Bruno saying the book is on university syllabi, I'll switch my view from weak keep to delete. (By the way, looking for Tamil book awards in English, I set up a new stub yesterday on Mu Metha. The Google results for him and his Tamil Nadu state award were thin - but they do exist.) Mereda 07:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I spend more than Rs 1000 per month on books, but I am yet to buy a book from Amazon or write a review there for a Tamil Book   Doctor Bruno    12:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment But don't you find it odd that no one cared to do so at any of those other places? Or that Dr. Prema Nandakumar has apparently never written anything for India Today? The article says that the English version was published in 2003 and vedamsbooks.com says it won an award from the Government of Tamil Nadu in 1999. India Today was up in 1997...um, when was this originally published?--Rmky87 15:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmmm, it appears that India Todays archives don't go back farther than 1997, and that the first edition of Chayathirai was published in 1994. In any case, I find it odd that Dr. Nandakumar would review it there instead of The Hindu, given that she wrote for them (her name gets 342 Google hits on hinduonnet.com) or on Boloji, where she is a contributing writer. Hmmm, it seems that The Hindus online archives only go back to 2000, and their literary review archives only go back to 2001.--Rmky87 16:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Of course, there's the fact that Prema Nandakumar was never mentioned anywhere in the pages of India Today from 1997 onward...--Rmky87 17:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Having read some of Dr. Nandakumar's work, I have come to doubt that she ever wrote the quoted review for this book: her English is better than that. I'm not just talking about the inappropriate spaces between the last word and the period after it; I'm talking about the parts that didn't make sense.--Rmky87 20:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete because no real argument has been provided to contradict Rmky87’s points. Fledgeling 01:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fledgeling. Hornplease 19:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fledgeling. India Today < Google.  •E l om i s•     


 * 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.