Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivekanand Jha


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Vivekanand Jha

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography with originally a huge number of references, almost all to works by the subject himself (see this version). I performed a huge cleanup, removed promotional links to Amazon, and tagged a number of references that didn't check out. What is left are still mostly the works of the subject himself. The article claim some awards, but they are minor and even when searching on the websites of the awarding organizations, I cannot find any mention of them (one actually seems to be from a blog, the other only a third place). A Google search renders some mentions in blogs, but no book reviews or such. (Note that there is another person of the same name, a nephrologist -see here- who probably meets WP:ACADEMIC). The article lists several books published by the subject, but they are all published by minor publishers (perhaps vanity publishers, but their websites are not completely clear about this) and I cannot find any reviews. Subject's own website doesn't list any either. Jha is also editor of two literary magazines that were recently established, both now at AfD, too. I see no evidence that this meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks Randykitty for creating debate. you have also tried to recommend this article for speedy deletion which was contested and review admin rejected the deletion. Not only that you are also raising question on the administrative and editorial quality of someone who had accepted this article more than one year back. There after nothing has changed into this article. But suddenly what happened in a week. Same day you have recommended my another article, Authorspress, created by me that too was rejected by another reviewer admin.  I am stun that even on such a global platform one can harm someone's career and hard labor due to any personal irritation and grudge. You have certainly cleaned up the articles and further weakened it by reducing third party citations from 27 to 10. your are talking about all of the books published by a vanity publishers. You need to update your knowledge that all the publishers mentioned in this article are traditional and frontline publishers of India. Most of Vivekanand Jha's works and reviews on them are available in print journals which are known as confirmed citations and i had provided citations to those journals but you have removed most of them. I don't think it is fair from a person holding administrative power. i hope there must be many people above you who will look into it as they have been doing. Prinshukr (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please read WP:AGF. I am not using any administrative tools here, so the fact that I am an admin is absolutely immaterial. In my nom, I linked to the version that had all previous "references" and links, for everybody to inspect. --Randykitty (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  15:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  15:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment if you have to start this debate to delete this article then why did you exhaust your mind in editing for hours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prinshukr (talk • contribs) 16:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it was such a mess that it was difficult to see what was significant and what not. After checking all references, I decided that it did not meet our inclusion guidelines and take it to AfD. This is part of WP:BEFORE (although usually BEFORE takes less time...) --Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unable to find any significant third-party coverage. The references cited in the article are either trivial mentions or affiliated with the author. I could find several mentions of "Vivekanand Jha" in Google Books, but these do not refer to the person being discussed here. Vivekanand is a very common Indian first name, and Jha is a very common surname as well. utcursch &#124; talk 18:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Added approx 15 third party citations of journals and books to further support this article. These citation doesn't include those which have been removed by review admin.  Prinshukr (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment While I appreciate your efforts, I am afraid that you misunderstand what we mean with "sourcing" here. Nobody contests that Jha has published poems and other work. The "references" that you added are all references to works by Jha. None of them discuss Jha himself or his works. This was also the case with any "reference" that I removed (and which can still be seen in this version. What is needed are references that are independent of Jha (i.e., written by others in publications not edited by him) and that discuss him or his work in depth (see WP:RS, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG). As for your remark about "review admin", I am acting here as a WP editor, not as an admin. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for your comment. you are again wrong at one point, none of the more than 15 citations that i have added today is being edited and authored by Mr Jha on whom this article is based. They are all third party citations of journals and anthologies edited and authored by someone else editors and authors. Those journals and anthologies published his pieces after selecting and reviewing them from number of submissions. These are review and criticism in itself. on your one point i can agree to some extent that it may need some citations which may be criticism and reviews on his creative works. That can be done, not a big thing. Such reviews and articles of him are available in the print version of books and journals that will be added soon after verification. Thanks again.Prinshukr (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Have a look at WP:ACADEMIC. Academics are judged by their publications that on top of any editorial selection are peer-reviewed by usually several peers. Yet, no academic is judged notable just because they have published a number of papers. What counts is whether anybody noted those papers by citing them in their own work or including them in a literature review. For authors, what we use are book reviews in reputable sources (so reviews on Amazon or someone's blog don't count). Just publishing something does not make an author notable. --Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks again. I agree with this points. I will do it but need some time to collect data from offline sources. i hope i will get co-operation from you.Prinshukr (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Probably delete With respect to WP:PROF, editing a very widely used anthology can meet  the requirements, but  the subject's "The Dance of the Peacock: An Anthology of English Poetry from India" is held in only 11 WorldCat libraries. That doesn't show it might not be important in India (India has no union catalog or other way of finding this sort of information), but it does show it isn't important elsewhere. The other books listed for him in WorldCat are similar--the most widely held is The novels of Amitav Ghosh : an analytical appraisal in 17 libraries. WP:PROF is normally interpreted on an international scale, but inn the humanities, there can be considerable national interest in work that is on national subjects, and this can be notable also. I don't really see any way of telling this--there is not only no citation indexes for India, but  index of any sort to publications from India in the field of humanities.
 * However, possibly it might meet  WP:AUTHOR.  For authors of poetry (as for short stories)  publication of their works as complete books is not essential, and publication in multiple major  anthologies has usually been accepted here. The ones currently listed as publishing his work  do not impress me as likely to be major anthologies.
 * Of course, this is part of a campaign for self-advertising, and could probably be deleted as such. The contributor does not seem to realize that the purpose of WP is not to help anyone's career--doing that would be promotional, and WP is not a medium for promotion. The purpose of WP is to have information that ordinary readers who might have encountered the subject might want to know. If the person has been covered by major reviews or appears in major anthologies or is a best-seller in a documented way, people might reasonable come to an encyclopedia to find   information. If the work is less well-known than that, they are not likely to come, and an article is inappropriate. (And that's the point of the notability guidelines).  DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * CommentThanks DGG. collecting third party citations for review and criticism by other authors and editors, to be included soon.Prinshukr (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The "awards" appear to be from non-notable blogs and there aren't any results which would support the argument the poet in question is notable. Elaenia (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No obvious independent reliable sources that are deeper than passing mentions or directory-type listings. The original author is a single-purpose account. A detailed inspection of their editing history suggests they have a promotional agenda at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia. Worldbruce (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * comment:-
 * Thanks to all editors who have participated so far in this debate. The article under discussion was accepted for publication on 06 Jan 2015. Since then and till 04 Mar 16, not a single question is raised against this article. On 04 Mar 16 one editor recommend it to speedy deletion as he was not happy and contended with my other three articles Authorspress, Phenomenal Literature & VerbalArt. I contested this speedy deletion and one admin declined its speedy deletion. Again same editor who recommended its speedy deletion, mobilize AfD. My question is that if this article was so much full of flaw and fallacies why anyone could not pay attention for one and more than year. Is article accepted for publication without any scrutiny? Is the speedy deletion is declined without any reason and investigation? Still I have tried utmost to address the grievances raised by the nominating and other editors.


 * Now coming to our next article Authorspress, same editor recommended this article for speedy deletion and on contesting the deletion, the speedy deletion declined by another admin/editor. Now who declined its speedy deletion and has now started AfD against this article. Don’t you think all these make the things something contraries? I appreciate this debate because it teaches many things to a new editor but what I observed is that if such debate is started on every article of Wikipedia, half of total articles created even by experience editors need to be deleted. It seems that we are peeling a piece of hair. I agree that I have written four articles of which three are co-related and one on different theme. I also agree that my two articles VerbalArt & Phenomenal Literature should not have been written but written in passion as a new editor. These also have a scope and can be merged with the article, Vivekanand Jha.


 * But I still strongly believe that articles Vivekanand Jha & Authorspress deserve to be on Wikipedia and this I am telling after going through a host of article available on authors and publishing houses on Wikipedia. While writing so many things I do understand the purpose of Wikipedia and every day and moment I turn for it to clear a cloud of any doubts. I do understand that it is not a platform for cataloging, promotion and advertising, like social networking sites and it needs a lot of patience, knowledge and hard work to remain riveted here.


 * I got some co-operation too. But, so far, especially in a month, more than getting co-operation from experienced editors, I am sorry to say, I suffered a bite, witch hunt, aggression and vandalism which is also against the policy of Wikipedia. If we need to observe all other policies of Wikipedia we need to follow this policy as well. Sorry for trespassing! Prinshukr (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2016 (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.