Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K Hari Kumar


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

K Hari Kumar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject fails WP:NAUTHOR. Has authored few non-notable books. Although he has been covered by few newspapers through interviews, this article from The Hindu describes his likes well as the authors who "push their work through social media and marketing directly". The interviews published are not sufficient enough to pass WP:GNG. An article about his book When Strangers meet is also AfDed by me; both were created by same user. The user has also uploaded images of subject with OTRS permissions present thereby possibly being in close relation to the subject. Pushing their work through social media, aren't they? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 15:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 15:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 15:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've done some dramatic cleaning to the article to remove the blatantly unusable sources and all of the puffery. One thing that concerned me was that some of the claims on the article were very much pulled out of context. For example, the comparisons to other authors wasn't really made in the way that the article claimed they were. The news source was actually about book marketing and the comparison was due to how many fans someone had on facebook- and even then it wasn't entirely a direct comparison. There is quite a bit of coverage here, although I suppose someone could say that it is all from a very short period of time. If it is kept, this will probably need to be watched so it doesn't turn into a puff piece again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   02:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pruning the article. I did start with that but found the whole subject unworthy and decided to AfD it. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 03:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I like to clean the articles up if there are a lot of links that are clearly unusable and there are some links that can show notability. I feel that it gives the article a better chance of survival, even if the chances are fairly slim. I know that a lot of people prefer to leave the articles "in situ" to show that they didn't try to sway things in one direction or another, which is understandable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have gone through your justifications as well. The writer is a living person, also closely known to me, who very well deserves a place on wikipedia for his work(s). I request you to lift the temporary ban on the article. Lakshmikm (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If not already known please review WP:COI. -- Green  C  04:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Also have made few corrections to make it simple and as apt as possible. Hoping that you will keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmikm (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Five reliable sources plus one more in the book article (which I recommended merge to the author article). -- Green  C  04:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn for personal reasons. I can't work with another editor here. Still believe it's notable however but have no interest in participating. -- Green  C  08:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So do you mean one passes GNG with 5-6 reliable sources? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 09:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah 5 or 6 reviews is pretty average for passing literature AfDs. -- Green  C  17:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? Its literature you are talking about. If nothing is written about literature, its a sad irony. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 05:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I do wish that some regulars in book/author-related AfDs could understand the difference between PR blurb, self-publicity etc and significant coverage. I'm seeing it time and again and lessons do not seem to be learned, eg: here and here. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * PR = Public Relations, meaning the piece was written by a self-interested party. That is a serious charge. Can you please support that with objective evidence? -- Green  C  17:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting into a semantics battle with you. You know exactly what I mean: this type of situation has been explained to you before &, in my limited experience of situations such as this, you've always been on the wrong side of consensus. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No I don't know "exactly what you mean". You called these "PR". When I asked for evidence you back off and start making personal attacks about me "always being on the wrong side of consensus" bringing up old AfDs as if you have some personal grudge you carry around.-- Green  C  17:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No grudge on my part. You just seem to have a history of not knowing what you are talking about when it comes to these India-related AfDs and a complete absence of antenna. So be it, and hopefully you'll pick it up in due course. Linking to an example of in-depth discussions of a similar nature is surely relevant to how people might form a decision here: sources, policy and the nature of the Indian publishing/marketing industry were discussed at length. The PR issues are being discussed here also, just not in this little bit of the process (see below) & all I said above was that I'm not getting into an argument with you regarding semantics. So stop with the pontificating about "serious charge" etc, please. I'm not a lawyer but if you want to act like one then feel free to sue me. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This personal discussion is taken elsewhere. The discussion about sources has apparently moved to a new section below, I have marked with a section break "Arbitrary break" so the closing admin can follow the discussion there. -- Green  C  07:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Sitush. It's also appears to be a promotion piece by somebody closely related to the subject of the article. Salih  ( talk ) 17:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please, explain - what "appears"? Please provide supporting objective evidence. Assume I don't believe your opinion, only facts. What are the facts? -- Green  C  17:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it appears is not correct. It's actually a fact disclosed by the principle author of the article, Lakshmikm. It's all about marketing and propaganda through social networking and PR releases. See this. Wikipedia should not be a party to their advertisement tactics. Salih  ( talk ) 18:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? I have no idea what you are saying. You link to an article and say "see". No idea what you are talking about. Please provide evidence. Spell it out. -- Green  C  19:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The linked article says the following: Krishna Kumar of Chennai-based publishing house Westland and Tranquebar Press, says, “Ever since Indian writing caught on in a big way, there have been many who started looking at writing as a profession as opposed to what it was earlier, an art form or a craft.” At the heart of this movement is a small publishing house called Srishti. Srishti’s latest book When Strangers Meet, by 24-year-old K. Hari Kumar, is now on its way to a second impression, according to the author. “They have taken on several writers who may not usually find a break with the big publishers. Once published, the authors push their work through social media and marketing directly. They know their target audience, and they connect with them in a big way through Facebook and Twitter on a daily basis,” Krishna Kumar adds. This really make me suspicious. Salih  ( talk ) 03:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you suspicious of? The literary world is not so big that people overlap. There is nothing there says these sources are compromised. The author of that piece may know some of the same people but so what, that's how the literary world works. -- Green  C  17:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They have taken on several writers who may not usually find a break with the big publishers. Once published, the authors push their work through social media and marketing directly. They know their target audience, and they connect with them in a big way through Facebook and Twitter on a daily basis. This is not the way the mainstream publishing works.. and I am suspicious of these small time authors using the Wikipedia as a social media for the advertisement of their works. This is my feeling, you may think otherwise. Salih  ( talk ) 17:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying, but they are talking about using social media which is normal. I speak with authors through social media it's a good way to connect. The sources in the article, The Hindu etc.. are not social media, are not paid to publish book reviews (that I know of), don't take bribes for reviews (that I know of) - and a small-time author with a small-time publisher couldn't afford it anyway. So we have to consider the sources as reliable unless there is evidence to the contrary. -- Green  C  21:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

C)
 * It's not actually The Hindu. It is the Metroplus, published by the same group. The Metroplus has been determined on past occasions not to be a reliable source - I vaguely recall being particularly excoriating about its practices and influence etc (Spiffy is not active at the moment; I'll have to see if I can find the diff but it certainly was in relation to another arts article). Metroplus is mostly planted features. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ... and of those Metroplus citations, this one has but a single sentence about the guy in an article concerned with the Indian publishing industry. It seems to be used only to verify that he is a debut novelist. The other one makes the completely unsurprising statement that 4000 copies were made for the first impression & notes (as does the above link) that it is now on its second impression. I don't mean to denigrate the guy but 4000 copies when the population of India is > 1 billion? I know that there are multiple languages and that literacy rates are sub-par outside of urban areas but, well, it seems like his publishers weren't too convinced themselves. And that raises an interesting point because the news article also says "Other readers however, have pointed out the spelling and grammatical errors in the book", while the first article noted "With a lot of small-time publishers there is also a self-publishing package where the writer pays the publisher to bring the book out. That could also explain why many of the books in this genre aren’t proofread and have woeful grammar and poorly constructed sentences." Still more, the second article says that the publisher doesn't even usually print this genre: it looks more and more likely that the guy is trying to make a name for himself and finally found a way to do it.
 * I'm also intrigued that the Mathrubhumi source is a blurb for "Youth of the Month". Mathrubhumi publishes a respected weekly literary magazine but, no, this guy features as "youth of the month" in the general features publication. - Sitush (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also just few lines above the creator says "The writer is a living person, also closely known to me, who very well deserves a place on wikipedia for his work(s)". All edits of the user since Oct 2013 are related to the subject. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 05:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah as if we've never seen that before.. this is typical for Wikipedia and that someone mentions they know an author doesn't change the fact there are multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. -- Green  C  17:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

=== -->


 * It is not "typical for Wikipedia" at all. I'd query the "in depth" claim for the coverage. Look, if the guy ends up writing a couple of bestsellers and/or gets a movie deal or something then you'll see in-depth coverage. Until then, you'll see PR just as at the examples I linked above. Being mentioned in a newspaper is not in itself a claim to notability: there has to be substance to it and - importantly - there has to be independence. You probably are still not familiar with the way that the Indian media operates but I can assure you that this stuff is not independent but instead manufactured. You've got at least two other people here saying more or less the same thing and all three of us have considerable experience in evaluating those sources. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding independence, RegentsPark (also not currently active) made a telling comment in an AfD of a similar nature that I linked above. I accept in advance any "other stuff (doesn't) exist" point but the comment is of a general nature and chimes well with our sources in this article at present: they're mostly interviews & they actually go out of their way to point out that the guy is working hard on his self-publicity. That authors will conduct interviews when trying to promote their latest book is not an issue per se (it is the way of the world) but, as RP said, mere coverage in newspapers through interviews is not significant stuff. It really is quite easy to get that sort of mention because it is cheap copy, and it is almost without exception taken in a fawning manner by Indian media. - Sitush (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) "if this guy writes best sellers.." There is no consensus that best-seller status denotes notability. Small run books can be notable, large run best-seller books may not be notable. Otherwise every book on best seller lists would have an article and we don't do that. There are many previous consensus discussions on best sellers and notability.
 * 2) "coverage in newspapers through interviews is not significant.." I agree that interviews given during book promotions are not independent. However a full-length interview is not the same as being quoted by a journalist in an article or a book review. The later have significant editorial content which is outside the control of the subject of the article. The journalist may write a fawning article, or they may write a negative one. We don't cherry pick sources based on their attitude towards the subject.


 * The sources we have are full blown journalism pieces under the editorial control of the journalist and not K Hari Kumar. They are reliable sources. No evidence has been shown that these are promotional or otherwise dependent pieces. -- Green  C  07:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Any chance that you can stop being so pedantic in your reading of what I write? Like I said, I'm no lawyer & I don't write like one. My "if he writes" comment was evidently a broad-brush approach to the issue & I wasn't saying that would itself create notability but that it would give rise to in-depth coverage. If you think that the sources provided are "full blown journalism" then you're way off-course: they are clearly based on material supplied by the author and designed for promotion, as they were in the previously-linked AfDs.


 * And I object to your arbitrary break because it might just cause a reviewing admin to miss some important analysis regarding the sources, including that provided by Salih and Dharmadyaksha and thus not just mine. I've commented it out that break because "The discussion about sources has apparently moved to a new section below," was clearly misplaced. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete, would not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR, not overly impressed by the quality of the sourcing. If and when Kumar truly meets the notability guidelines, we won't need to split hairs over whether appearing in borderline sources, because they'll be plenty of coverage in high-quality sources.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:17, 22 February 2014 (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.