Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabila Jamshed (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Though specific guidelines like WP:CREATIVE may not be met, there is enough coverage in independent reliable sources that we can find the subject notable per the general notability guideline WP:N. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Nabila Jamshed
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Page fails to assert notability per WP:CREATIVE - not important, minimal attention, no new concept, no major role in a movie or other creative work, can't find reviews of her book, can't find any critical attention, most references are to local media and quite short. There's only three real references which are quite short and dated to nearly a year ago with no attention I can find since then. Previous version of the page was deleted and no real new content or sources added since then that I can recall (can't see the deleted page for a direct comparison).

Amazon does not have a copy of her book, I can't find an ISBN, no attention seems to have been paid since the initial publication push in 2007 and google turns up 1000 hits, the top of which are blogs and wikipedia mirrors. WLU (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --Eastmain (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added a reference. The Hindu is a national newspaper, and I think this article in The Hindu is enough by itself to demonstrate notability, despite the fact that the book isn't available through Amazon.com I would be puzzled if a book published in 2008 in the United States or the United Kingdom lacked an ISBN, but the book industry in India is less automated than elsewhere. NDTV.com is also a reliable source, based on this claim that "New Delhi Television Limited (NDTV), founded in 1988, is India's first and largest private producer of news, current affairs and entertainment television." --Eastmain (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As evident from news stories on New Delhi Television (NDTV 24x7), Star News India - radio interviews on Delhi's Radio City 91.1 FM & Meow 104.8 FM - coverage of the launch AND reviews in The Hindu, The Times of India, The Hindustan Times Next, Hindustan Times City, The Statesman, The Pioneer, India Today, The Week and the Indian Express - the book has been quite famous in India. One will have to accept that NOT ALL OF THIS COVERAGE CAN POSSIBLY BE FOUND ONLINE! Whatever can be, has been linked to. There are a number of notables from other countries on Wikipedia - countries that have a culture of putting nearly everything online. Dismissing someone for not being famous, just because you cant find amazingly massive evidence of it online is absurd. The book was published by Neeta Prakashan, New Delhi. The ISBN has now been ascertained. It is an original work with a new concept. It is India's first and only fantasy novel by a teenage author. And it has sold hundreds of copies since it launch next year within the country. Just beacuse it isn't on Amazon doesn't make it notable for Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.44.3 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CREATIVE's criteria sets the bar at being an important or widely cited figure by their peers, originating a new concept, created a body of work that has been the subject of independent publishing or film-making or reviews, or been a substantial part of an exhibition or some other attention from the relevant community. Jamshed has had none of these, and the coverage is generally quite trivial.  The book does not seem to have moved past the initial stage of attention garnering.  I think WP:CREATIVE exists so anyone who gets published doesn't get a page, but that's part of the debate (and my interpretation!).  WLU (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I've seen the book in bookstores. It was reviewed by Live Mint (Part of Wall Street Journal) & Hindustan Times Next. The Live Mint review also appeared on its website. Here is a page I found that mentions ISBN and other details.  No major role in a movie shoudln't really be a criteria for deletion! C'mon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.44.3 (talk • contribs)
 * The page is about the author, not the book. The criteria is set at WP:CREATIVE, not by individual users.  WLU (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, wise guy, we know its about the author. But since u brought up the issue of no ISBN and no reviews, I had to bring to your notice both things. Its beginning to look as though you were hellbent on removing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.44.3 (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability for a book and for a author are different, and I see little evidence of the relevant notability guidelines being passed for either. Below:

WP:CREATIVE
Jamshed is not an important figure, hasn't created a new concept, has no body of work or major film and there's no critical attention (the criteria for the article about an author). Publishing a single book, the interest in which has died off, is not a reason to have a wikipedia article. The page was deleted previously and nothing has really changed since then, so there's no reason to retain the current page. Two paragraphs in TheWeek, two paragraphs in Kolkata Newsline, a stubby non-article on NDTV's print section and a single article in The Hindu, all from a year ago with no attention since indicates a lack of notability. Unlike people or topics in general, press coverage is not sufficient for an author, it must be more than a single book. Coverage by multiple sources is the general notability guideline for topics but authors have more specific ones (most authors get some press time which lets them scrape general notability even when they only ever publish a single book that flops; accordingly, a more specific guideline is used). Reference should be made to the specific guidelines, not the general notability page.

WP:BK
At best, an article might scrape the bottom of the barrel for the book's notability, but these are news stories, not reviews. The relevant criteria for books is multiple independent publications with non-trivial coverage, some of which include critical commentary. Coverage is trivial in Kolata Newsline and NDTV's artilces, borderline in TheWeek and reasonably extensive in The Hindu. However, the sole aritcle that is extensive (The Hindu) is about the author primarily, not the book. None include critical commentary or reviews and at best could expand the plot summary section of the book.
 * Books and people have separate notability guidelines, and neither subject passes the appropriate one. WLU (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I think there is just enough coverage of this person in reliable sources to meet the primary notability guideline which I would give more weight to than a subguideline such as WP:CREATIVE. Davewild (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2008 (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.