Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Lucknow


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Little Lucknow

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This AfD is sort of a complicated one. Individually, the article for Little Lucknow and for Nitya Prakash are not notable enough for individual articles. I had done some marked improvements to the author's article and redirected the book page to the author's article because together, they formed enough of an article to where I could justify leaving it despite twinges of guilt over some of the sources on the author's article not really passing RS. HOWEVER, the edits have been reverted with the justification that I was not to do any changes to the article whatsoever without any full conversations on the article talk page, essentially telling me that I was not allowed to make any changes or make any redirects. Now the reason I'm listing this here is because the notability for either article was still fairly shaky even after merging the two together. I'd like to get a consensus on this, also because there's a language barrier. The biggest issue here is that the book is decidedly non-notable despite the "sources" on the page. Before anyone says "clearly notable, look at the sources", I'll list as to why most of them are non-usable. I'm listing Prakash with this because quite frankly, he has an equally big problem with sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons stated above:

Here's a rundown of the sourcing for Little Lucknow:
 * 1) This appears to be user submitted, not written by anyone actually on the news staff. Per parts of the site, anyone can submit their own news article, so it's very easy for anyone to submit an article. Such user submitted content is rarely to never usable as a reliable source and we know nothing about the submitter's qualifications. Nine times out of ten, when I've found links of this nature, it's by someone that is somehow involved with the author or the author's publisher. Not saying that's the case here, but I don't see where this is reliable. I left it on the author's article despite having concerns of reliability.
 * 2) Scribido Magazine doesn't appear to be notable or reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. It's also one of those sites where anyone can join up and publish articles. It looks to be sort of a social media-esque site. At the most this could be something under EL, but not much else.
 * 3) Another article where the site doesn't seem reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I also want to note that the sections of this are almost identical to how the article for Prakash was originally written before I revised it, meaning that odds are it was written by the same people who wrote the WIkipedia article in an attempt to publicize the author.
 * 4) Spectral Hues is not a reliable source, being a non-notable book site. At the most, this could be listed under EL.
 * 5) This is one of the few articles that could be seen as somewhat reliable, which is why I left it on the author's article.
 * 6) Now before anyone says "hey, this is CNN", it's not. It's iCNN, which is a place where anyone can submit a blog entry and these entries are not vetted by CNN. If they're very, very lucky it might be selected for coverage, which this wasn't. In this past using iCNN has been a trick some have used to try to bolster sources by creating their own articles (or getting others to create them) and using them as sources. This is not reliable in any stretch of the word.
 * 7) This is a press release, and press releases are not usable as reliable sources ever since they're released by the author or publisher.
 * 8) This is another one of those sources that could actually be used as a RS. It looks to be relatively legit.
 * 9) Non-notable book blog review, which are not usable as a reliable source except in very rare and extreme circumstances.
 * Now this is the rundown of the current sources on the article for the book. As it is, there's really not a lot to use on the author's article as it is. We really only have about two sources that could somewhat be usable as RS, . That is not enough to show notability for the book.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Now as far as the author goes, the only source not listed above is this one: I had left it on the author's page, but this is just a video of him giving a lecture. It's not news coverage of him. It's not an article about him. It's just a video of him giving a lecture. When you get down to it, there's only two sources to show any sort of notability and that's not enough to pass WP:GNG in any format, whether it's for a person or a book. I figured that it'd just be better to bring it here and let it get hashed out in AfD. There were a lot of other links on the original content of the author's article, none of which showed notability in the slightest, being either IMDb-esque listings for non-notable films, links to Goodreads, links to non-notable blog entries, links to various dodgy sites... none of the links showed the slightest bit of notability, although anyone curious can see the original state of the article here:  There was also a big problem with neutrality and promotional speak with the original format of the author's article and that exists now on the book article. Neither article is notable enough and since I'm sort of getting my hand pushed, I'm nominating them as I probably should've done in the first place.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Anbu121  ( talk me ) 19:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Anbu121  ( talk me ) 19:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Anbu121  ( talk me ) 19:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Daily News & Analysis, July 23, 2012 is a detailed source. Merinews August 26, 2012 is a good source. However, that is not enough to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2012 (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.