Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashmi Singh (author) (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   delete. No real improvement has been done to this article since the last time it visited AFD, as the only additional sources added are not reliable by any means. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 07:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Rashmi Singh (author)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article appears to be little more than a recreation of the previously-deleted version. I'm seeing no additional evidence of notability ... unless my memory is fading with age. Sitush (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't this enough to prove a persons notability ?


 * http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120926/jsp/bihar/story_16019641.jsp#.UGUg5q53DIVl
 * www.boldsky.com/insync/pulse/2012/rashmi-singh-author-interview-030960.html (oneindia)
 * isahitya.com/index.php/new-age-sahitya/new-age-sahitya/511-writing-is-a-perennial-source-of-quenching-my-thirst-of-knowledge-and-feelings-rashmi-singh -- Doreen Reinders (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 *  Weak delete. The previous article had huge WP:COI problems (the photo uploaded by user:rrashmissingh is a leftover from this bit of autobiography) but I don't see enough evidence to establish that she (or her publishers) wrote this version. That said, this is just marginally compliant on WP:RS (of nine sources, six look to be reviews or opinion pieces from bloggers) and that leaves this borderline on establishing notability for an WP:AUTHOR. There are many books in print, what makes this one special enough to be notable? K7L (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The re-creation came after this request made by the WP:SPA known as . - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is problematic as a copy-paste move breaks attribution, a WP:COPYVIO issue. K7L (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The previous article had huge WP:COI problems.... having a copyvio issue (Copying within Wikipedia),........ but that is no reason to delete. -- Doreen Reinders (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, a sufficiently identical and unimproved recreation of something already voted for deletion is a candidate for speedy deletion. The same is true of "unambiguous advertising or promotion" and "unambiguous copyright violation". K7L (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since was involved in the last discussion and seems to consider this to be a recreation, it looks like my memory is not playing tricks and this should indeed be speedy-deleted per CSD criterion G4. Doubtless an admin could check the previously deleted version but since it is now obvious that this present version emerged from Ananyaprasad's draft, which itself was taken from the deleted version, the outcome seems to be inevitable. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd also query whether and  are meatpuppets. THe timing of the former's AfC effort and the latter's request noted here is likely to be more than coincidence. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a supposed "alternate account" created yesterday, with few contributions to anything other than this discussion, vociferously wants the article kept. How can you argue with that? K7L (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment the national AFD list should India, not England, even though she writes in English. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I can't see anything wrong with the sources in this article and The Telegraph (Calcutta), Oneindia.in is an excellent primary. There is a certain degree of suspicion for all Indian newspapers that they base their stories on press releases, but the sources given is clearly not a press release. That the popular English-language newspaper & news portal in the country published articles on them is notability. The articles clearly do establish the status. I wonder if the doubters can find similar coverage for others writers, having a wikipedia page --. I'm sure they won't. She has written books. Some people have done much less than that and can be found on WP. -- Doreen Reinders (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read the prior discussion? The sources that you refer to were discussed there and the citations used on this occasion are identical to those used previously. They are neither qualitatively suitable nor sufficient in number. Oneindia and The Telegraph both regularly copy stuff, including from ourselves. In fact, it some issues of The Telegraph can take the appearance of being nothing but assembled copies from other (usually unattributed) sources. Whether similar coverage can be found for other writers is a completely irrelevance - see WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The last batch of "sources" to be added to the article is even lower in quality... she wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper? a local schoolmaster gave her a potted plant? Egads, if this is how badly one must scrape the bottom of the barrel, this is not notable. K7L (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources are of sufficient quality and number to pass WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yay, exactly what you said last time. You were wrong then, so please could you explain what is different now? - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies: for "wrong" read "on the wrong side of consensus". - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure why you didn't just speedy or AfD it in the first place, given that you were involved in the prior deletion discussion. I presume that you misremembered but that is no excuse for misremembering now that it has been made clear. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete by reason of CSD#G4 from previous discussion as the article is not sufficiently improved and unimproved from the form it was when it was originally deleted. The proper forum for appeal to the original deletion was at WP:DRV not a second creation of the same piece.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Why has been E Books written by the author has been deleted in the bibliography section when links with it were given to verify and one of the e book is in bestseller rank at Amazon? Next, I do no think it is a copy of the previous one. Except the bibliography section, nothing is same. Obviously husband and children's name would be the same! And educational qualification can not change either. But in the previous one there were 4 books. She has written One more and there were couple of ebooks too ding so well of which I was unaware which unfortunately has been deleted! Copying does not call for a deletion. Wikipedia clearly says that only a single notable link is enough to prove any author's notability even if the article has been badly drafted Instead of deleting vote you should have worked n it to improve. It has been supported by Wikiproject Bihar and has been kept in high importance-this means this author holds a lot of importance of Bihar. Ananyaprasad (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That High-Importance for Wikiproject Bihar was a rating placed by the article creator in this edit to the article Talk page, so it is not clear that any inference can be drawn from it. AllyD (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. @Ananyaprasad High importance at WikiProject Bihar is an internal assessment and can in no way indicate any notability. Those parameters can be changed by anyone.-- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 08:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Does not fail WP:AUTHOR It has many excellent primary and secondary sources.WP:AUTHOR says about the notability of author as 'The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors'. check http://www.ryanfaridabad.co.in/ViewAnnouncementsDetail.aspx?id=108 and http://www.amarujala.com/page.php?c=faridabad&n=Faridabad-29068-139 Her fifth book is on Pulksein 2 of South India and has been quoted by all sites dealing with Chalukya dynasty of India but I have not posted as they will be deleted. Next Ryan International Group of Institutions will never invite a non notable writer in their Independence day function and felicitate her/him. Next- what is reason for the deletion of ebooks? If the links were not suitable, they should have been deleted-why the names of the books?Ananyaprasad (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is your post reply to my post above or a general comment ? -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 09:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever you may think.I just want to say the deletion votes are coming mostly 'cause of bad drafting which makes no sense to delete an article. The article has excellent sources like The Telegraph Oneindia.in Amar Ujala The Economic Times Ryan International Group of Institutions In the first deletion it was marginally meeting the notability as it was having only 2 good sources. Now it has many. Rest the admin will decideAnanyaprasad (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The deletion votes are coming because this is a re-creation of an article already voted for deletion as blatant self-promotion, there is no substantial improvement in sources from the deleted version and what "sources" have been newly added are blog posts. Not every WP:AUTHOR is notable as Wikipedia is WP:NOT a list of books in print. The article is an advertisement to sell the book. K7L (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then all other Authors' articles should be deleted or book's wiki should be deleted. Actually your mind is set because you had managed to get this article deleted. Now let the others decide. You even held up the deletion of Usha Kiran Khan created by me which is again recreated effectively! When people want to know about their authors, esp from their state/home/country then this is not the case of self promotion or selling any book! In fact I have noticed that every author is having their official website to see books but both Usha Kiran and Rashmi Singh are not having any personal website to sell books. Since Singh is a contemporary author, she maybe present on social media networking sites- in fact it is from these sites we come to know about them Ananyaprasad (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the "substantial coverage", bearing in mind that it basically repeats the previously deleted article? It is mostly PR stuff and that is specifically not sufficient to ensure notability. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * *Comment Amar Ujala Ryan International Group of Institutions and her latest book review of Oneindia.in http://www.boldsky.com/insync/pulse/2013/untold-story-of-arundhati-black-emperor-035308.html were not in the previous article-nor her ebooks, of which I weren't aware, are deleted without giving any reason. Even this wasn't there in the previous one http://isahitya.com/index.php/new-age-sahitya/new-age-sahitya/511-writing-is-a-perennial-source-of-quenching-my-thirst-of-knowledge-and-feelings-rashmi-singh ,The Telegraph one is a very extensive interview and The Economic Times again a book review, hence it is no case of PR stuff.Ananyaprasad (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Let the Admin decide. Taking my vote off. As I am busy creating another article on Usha Kiran Khan but not able to do so. Thought, I'll learn on this then move to other important articlesAnanyaprasad (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC) —  Ananyaprasad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete The Telegraph piece is not an article about her, but an interview published in the regional pages. THe other two "main" sources are crowd sourced interviews including one by a person completing her Bachelor of Technology. Being invited by a high school group as an invited speaker is also not any sign of notability (been there, done that). On the whole, there's nothing to suggest notability or substantial reliable source coverage. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  07:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * * Comment Mr Admin, I feel a kind of foul play is going on of some kind of lobbyism and stalking. I created a page Usha Kiran Khan, which was reviewed and flagged off. But it was put to speedy deletion and deleted within hours cause there were some copy paste issue in the draft. The author being extremely notable was not the concern of these Wikipedian- their main concern was to delete. It was put to speedy deletion by one here and deleted by another present here! This is so very absurd!! Instead of changing the draft a li'l when Wikipedia clearly says that try maintaining notable articles! Now it is clear that those in favor of deletion of this page is not against this article but any article made by me!(The first version was made by me and deleted by the one who is doing his best to delete now) Next who deleted Usha Kiran Khan says "Being invited by a high school group as an invited speaker is also not any sign of notability (been there, done that)" May I ask if how many are invited like this by any respectable instt- Can he cite any example. If a notable person is of their town or state, it is matter of pride for them! Otherwise this Instt has invited APJ Abdul Kalam also, so now ppl can say 'retired- no work - so available" Actually hordes of article and all one liners are created by Mr SpacemanSpiff without any notable source to establish which I don't know how all playing in/out of notability game have kept them, Next "interviews including one by a person completing her Bachelor of Technology."- to this I have to say, here most of the Wikipedians are school goers so havnt they got brains? What is it do with if the reporter is doing B Tech, Next interview of the Telegraph is not a regional thing. It's in their main paper- as Telegraph is published from Kolkatta. There are so many Rashmi Singh's. In India this name is very common but how many are notable? Why leave out The Economic Times and Oneindia.in's book review? Are they also regional? It is very funny that maturity should succumb to stalking.This way ppl wl definitely lose interest in Wiki and not respect even. I know now whatever article I'll create, will be deleted ! Ananyaprasad (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are rules about this see WP:HOUNDing: "creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." SpacemanSpiff is an administrator in a conflict dispute over this AfD. Ananyaprasad has expressed distress that she is feeling like she is being hounded. I have not seen the Usha Kiran Khan copyvio but it could have been given a copyvio warning instead of instant deletion right after creation. I thought this edit by SpacemanSpiff was a purposeful slight on the article: "start class a stretch" - there is nothing before start class. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Participating in an AfD and deleting copyvio when I'm in the midst of just doing a wide set of such tasks is not any conflict. I think you lot should stop this nonsense right away rather than waste everyone's time. Oh, stub comes before start, so if you don't know anything at all about these things, it's better you don't comment. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems AP is hounding SpacemanSpiff by nominating Anagha Deshpande for deletion although it clearly passes WP:NCRIC.-- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ  03:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * * Not hounding. If there are sources for all Spaceman Spiff's one liner articles- let him improve. I also do not want any notable Indian to be deleted off from Wiki. But Why you, Spacemaspiff and one or two more are have formed a party/gropup here and this even a blind person can see! Coming openli in favor of each other Ananyaprasad (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not know others, but the one Anagha Deshpande you nominated clearly passes notability and also has appropriate citations to verify. So nominated that for deletion is a textbook case of revenge editing. And you better stop accusing everyone who disagree with you of working in a team, you are inching yourself toward a block.-- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 03:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That article passes specific guidelines but not general notability guidelines. Also see Hound which is what happened to Ananyaprasad. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * * Mr Vigyani, are you threatening me? Instead of putting your energy to articles you are threatening me to block an trying to save Spaceman Spiff's act. If you block me, then it surely now clear that you can to any limits to do get it done what you want. Rashmi Singh's article is fully notable and let others discuss it. Ananyaprasad (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @AP It is called warning not threat. @GC I have not worked on sports related pages. But as I understand, once any specific guidelines are met, the GNG are not required. In the case of AP's alleged harassment, I feel it is being blown out of proportion. I have not seen the deleted version of AP's other creation. But arguing that an admin after voting in an AfD stands disqualified from taking action against other other articles of an editor who voted opposite in the same AfD debate is clearly absurd, especially in case of copyvio's. On the other hand AP here is unnecessarily being aggressive and not assuming good faith.-- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are also rules about copy-paste of text from external sources. Wikipedia is a bit draconian about WP:COPYVIO so there's nothing unusual about such being removed immediately instead of through a lengthy debate. K7L (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * * Mr K7L Wikipedia is also stict about the fact that notable articles should be tried and kept, saved instead of jumping on it in draconian style! Ananyaprasad (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Mr K7L You should be apprised that the I had rectified those 2 lines in Usha Kiran Khan. which seemed to be copied/pasted then also it was immediately deleted by the team making insulting edits and comments here. I do not think articles of Wikipedia should be hounded. Many people want to know about this author who is extremely popular in her State more than the place where she is residing and being called as a Speaker as she became the first Woman fron Bihar in 2011 with Love's Journey to write English fiction. In fact there was a wrong reporting abt another Writer who debuted in 2012- here also there was a little issue but it was settled as when the newspaper published a CLARIFICATION (the author's letter) in their paper about her claim and there was no opposition as it was the truth. Refer Mr admin, I am still leaning about edits but whatever article I pick up- I do so on solid grounds. It is not just spam or a hoax! Given that Rashmi Singh was called as a speakeras she was there- why then the she have to write her HOME STATE newspaper to rectify the error? Amar Ujala and all other sources are wrong and unimportant inluding The Telegraph and The Economic Times, Oneindia.in?  And what does this recent one say in Times of India neighbourhood, Delhi  PS Why the edit by Spaceman Spiff is made on the talk page from mid/high importance to low?  Has he got any source to do so? 01:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is this link removed http://www.ryanfaridabad.co.in/ViewAnnouncementsDetail.aspx?id=108 when WP: AUTHOR clearly says that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Ananyaprasad (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why has this line 'Singh is also amongst few women from Bihar to write English fictions and make contributions to Bihari literature ' from the start para removed using TW ? How can the one doing the revert say/ establish that Bihari literature is a puff piece? Once using TW the person doing so must establish this or should delete Bihari literature if it is a puff piece. Why keep it? Bihari literature  might be unsourced but has names  of ppl having places in Wikipedia with reliable sources? Ananyaprasad (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sitush You have actually misunderstood. She was there to hoist flag and had spoken to the students. In it is clearly written ' The guest congratulated the students and expressed that Independence day for her is a symbol of Patriotism and celebrating this day means remembering those who sacrificed their lives to make India free from British rule. She advised the students to be well read, well informed and stay grounded. The programme culminated with a high feelings of patriotism.' Now tell me what does it mean? You think a non notable person will be anywhere in the world called to motivate the students and hoist the flag? Potted plant in India is given to the Prez as well. This is our kind of tradition.Ananyaprasad (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * She wasn't opening up anything which you have imagined on your own she was hoisting the flag- Indian flag which only renowned people of India can touch. It is written 'The flag hoisting was done by the chief guest of the day Ms. Rashmi Singh which was followed by National Anthem and pledge for the country.' Yes I am not doing deliberately- this you have got it correct as I read the content then find a correct word for it. You have not read the content and thought she had gone their to open up something- Ryan group is one of the most prestigious group of inst in India- this all knowAnanyaprasad (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Having looked at the subject's credentials, I think, going by what she has written to date, every Mills & Boon author (many of them write under pseudonymns) could claim notability going by the number of copies of their books sold or read worldwide. The subject may or not be the first person from her region to have written a novel or anything  in English. That in itself seems a doubtful claim to notability. I would have liked to see substantial, meaningful reviews of her books, written by recognised literary critics. Libraries everywhere are full of books by people who have written books and remain anonymous.-  Zananiri (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * * Read the bibliography. Don't go by the names of the novel. She has written non fictions and the recent one is of Historical genre (read its reviews- links are given) . Voting on assumptions is not required here. Ananyaprasad (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC) AndZananiri How can you read when the reviews here of even The Economic Times are being callously deleted? Links are deleted/ reviews are deleted/ have gone so far to even delete ISBN as it is not found on Amazon etc. Hence I have posted Amazon's link- Next they'll delete Amazon link that it sells books and promotional! Tell me how can you read anything then? Ananyaprasad (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:AUTHORS. As was discussed in the previous AFD the coverage in the two nominally reliable sources (the interview in Telegraph India and the one book review in Economic Times) are insufficient to establish that the subject is "regarded as an important figure" in literature or "created, ..., a significant or well-known work,... that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". The other sources cited in the current version of the article are completely unreliable and seem to be amongst the suite of websites that have cropped up in India recently exclusively to promote authors, apparently in exchange of payment (aside: this phenomenon seems to parallel the fake "open access" journals that have also bloomed in India recently). I think AFD and AFC regulars should be aware of this, so I'll outline a few suspicious signs below:
 * spectralhues.com: Read their About us and note that it gives us no idea of the sites publishers. Their contact page does not list any physical address, just a web form and a gmail/spectralhues email address. Their Advertise with us page admits, "Spectralhues promotes authors as well as provide web content, web development and editorial services to others. Spectralhues bring fresh and unique opportunity for writers to exchange & share their views and ideas by discussing on numerous subjects and address the core issues." (emphasis added)
 * Isahitya.com: They are even more direct on their Advertisement page, "We also have special advertisement arrangement for established writers to showcase their upcoming books or existing books to our visitors .But we only request this to well established writers not new comers . For young emerging writers we have our free special promotion program." (emphasis added)
 * Also note the absence (as far as I can tell) of any negative reviews or challenging interviews on these promotional websites. For future reference, other websites of the same ilk, though not used in this article, include bookchums and finuraa.com. The latter by the way removed their pay for promotion package advertisement page (archived here) after it was pointed out at previous AFDs, so we can expect the above and similar website to get more subtle in their marketing soon. Ever more the reason for wiki editors to be aware and vigilant. Abecedare (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What you've described is nominally called a vanity review, related to the vanity award phenomenon (article I created) - not unique to India. Ideally we would have an investigative journalist in a reliable source confirm a vanity shop such as this source. I looked at spectralhues.com Advertise with us and it appears to be for banner adds. As well the Isahitya.com Advertisement page is about banner adds. Though I can see a more subtle reading would be for paid reviews, maybe not.. If these are vanity shops they must be advertising their services somewhere more explicitly to bring in new business. Suggest a list be created of suspected vanity shops with compiled evidence anyone can contribute. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The first reference in the article is spectralhues.com where, according to the subject's own Linkedin entry, she is currently a columnist per http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Rashmi/Singh Backscratching personified, I would say, apart from raising questions about the relevance of that reference .- Zananiri (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If she is a columnist at spectralhues.com then there is a clear COI with that source and it should be removed. -- :::Green Cardamom (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Green Cardamom (talk) But she became a columnist http://www.spectralhues.com/celebrity-speak/ (check the dates) after about a month the of the interview. http://www.spectralhues.com/author-interview/page/3/  If any site feels the author has depth and approaches her to write after the interview (seeing her success)- can it be in COI? - the review of her latest book has also come from this site http://www.spectralhues.com/book-world/2013/09/untold-story-arundhati-black-emperor-book-review/ but after she has been writing here so it is good that, ithis link ha not been put in the article . But the Interview was taken before she had become a Columnist, so is there any harm in putting it? Next the 'motivator' word was deleted from the article but thanks to Zaniri for posting Linkedin link and backscratching, I found this there http://www.slideshare.net/rashmi211 with 5 documents of her having considerable no of views and downloads. Maybe as the the administrator is Rashmi Singh here but the views proves her skill. Ananyaprasad (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The coverages are substantial and enough WP:GNG No Reason to delete when her latest work is also termed 'dintinct' and 'different' and has been upheld for dealing with the Kingdoms of South India by Oneindia.in  -which no other author probably has done till yet. South Indian kings and the details of their kingdoms  have been very first time woven into fictionAnanyaprasad (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Only one blogger/content writer has called the book distinct and different. which the creator of this article is using to back her statement viz. http://www.boldsky.com/insync/pulse/2013/untold-story-of-arundhati-black-emperor-035308.html. The same blogger has written about the book on another website cited in the article: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18489486-the-untold-story-of-arundhati-and-the-black-emperor#other_reviews But one person's opinion is not considered opinion and does not satisfy WP criteria for an article. One swallow does not a summer make, as the saying goes. Earlier, the Hindi newspaper Amar Ujala was being cited in the article as a source vouching for the notability of the subject. This, too,  proved to be wide off the mark.
 * As for the subject having received wide coverage, newspaper interviews with all sorts of writers, conducted by reporters doing their day job, are a common feature in Indian newspapers. Similarly, write-ups about their books by such reporters are not book reviews. The only reviews that really count are those of established literary critics. I have still not found any. In fact, when asked whether she was plannong to write some serious fiction, the subject  herself replied (in this source also cited in the article http://isahitya.com/index.php/new-age-sahitya/new-age-sahitya/511-writing-is-a-perennial-source-of-quenching-my-thirst-of-knowledge-and-feelings-rashmi-singh): Well, I am writing one... I think that is a telling statement. She was alluding to her latest book, I imagine,, but it is still very early days to say that it is considered to be distinct just  because one blogger/content writer thinks so, not forgetting that these bloggers/content writers at such sites are also often doing their day job. As mentioned by Abecedare as well, one does not AFAICT see negative reviews on these sites. And the reviews are invariably followed by information about the availabilty and price of the book reviewed.- Zananiri (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Zananiri (talk) PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES AND DON'T BE BIASED: one is ANWESHA SARKAR of Oneindia.in and the OTHER IS ANWESHA BOSE of 'the india fusion' at GOODREADS. Both reviewer's name is Anwesha and Oneindia.in is NOT A BLOG. It is a NEWS PORTAL. I have earlier also written when Green Cardomom had found out some link of Rashmi Singh wirh same father's name: hence father's occupation had to be incorporated from a pdf file source which has been deleted. AND IT IS DISTINCT AS WHEN ALL REVIEWS AND TILL NOW HAS UPHELD IT. In some source it is early- some source thi- some that.... so much so the notability of renowned newspaper too is doubted to delete her article from here. thing AND GOOD YOU BROUGHT HERE THE AMAR UJALA I wonder why it was deleted? So many summers rae being deleted. Moreover the Amar Ujala source cleary was putting this fact that she is in the capacity of renowned writer is a Social activist too. I have also nominated articles for deletion but when in Faaraz Kazi article sources have come up then what is there to question abt the sources- even if it is Shillong Times or Mumbai Mirror?02:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananyaprasad (talk • contribs)
 * And it wasn't THE SAME REPORTER OR CONTENT WRITER ACC TO YOU, THAT WAS AMRISHA SHARMA OF Oneindia.in You mean to say If Amitabh Bacchan is interviewed and his work reviewed again by the news channel, we will write them off? No. Because he is very well known an no one wld dare do this. Here you are doing so cause she is an author and authors in India ( except like Chetan Bhagat- whose marketing strategy is very strong) have a very pathetic profile as you might me knowing that so many died ignominiously in wait of their book to be reviewed like Premchand- their books were reviewed after their deaths cause Wiki wasn't at that time to make them known. For you 2-3 respectable comments are not enough and you have this feeling that this author is being treated very highly by all the nes portals so much so as they are favoring openly then why hadn't she deleted her spectralhues thing from Linkedin. C'mon dont be so negative all the time. It looks you want to wait for reviews all life.. and then say 'yes I was wrong' Ananyaprasad (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And I am not the creator. Shivamsetu is the creator- this shows just to delete this article you can to any limits of misguiding the adminAnanyaprasad (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "As mentioned by Abecedare as well, one does not AFAICT see negative reviews on these sites. And the reviews are invariably followed by information about the availabilty and price of the book reviewed." I went myself to check if this site http://indianfusion.aglasem.com/the-untold-story-of-arundhati-and-the-black-emperor-the-sluttish-time-rashmi-singh-book-review/ which has written its review on goodreads has put inthe details of the sale of Rashmi Singh's book- ANS- NO! Then i went here http://www.boldsky.com/insync/pulse/2013/untold-story-of-arundhati-black-emperor-035308.html ANS NO- NO INFO OF BOOKS OF HERS- SALE ETC. There is one review here http://www.spectralhues.com/book-world/2013/09/untold-story-arundhati-black-emperor-book-review/ but I HAVE NOT PUT IN THIS CAUSE THIS REVIEW CAME AFTER SHE BECAME THEIR COLUMNIST! (and only good at this work can become one) AND HERE ALSO SHE DID NOT GET 4 0R 5 STARS! NEXT NEGATIVE REVIEWS- BOOKCHUM hv done done reviews of her books and interviewed also Rashmi Singh but their reviews of her latest 2 books have not been so welcoming on this site though they are selling her books but still have criticized. Now if you see a negative review, then you'll say OMG! A NEGATIVE REVIEW??!!?? Why then on wiki?? POSITIVE: huh! All positive!! Critics work is to praise/criticize. Take it positively. Ananyaprasad (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I do know whose name appears as the creator of this article and should indeed have said the creator of this section of the article . Minor slip. I appreciate that you are an avid fan of the subject, but please do note that capitalising whole sentences to stress your views is considered shouting. - Zananiri (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not fan. First time the article was created by me. Again you got your facts wrong. And what is wrong reporting called VANDALISM? Ananyaprasad (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And now this a very reliable source has come up http://epaper.newindianexpress.com/179739/The-New-Indian-Express-Bhubaneswar/01.11.2013#page/17/2 Ananyaprasad (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2013 (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.