Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhijit Bhaduri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Daniel.Bryant 08:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abhijit Bhaduri

Abhijit Bhaduri (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable enough for Wikipedia[1]. The article cites wrong references. For eg. [2] doesn't mention that "the book has become a cult hit in campuses across India". The few newspaper articles such as [3] are either book reviews or press-release types of articles. I couldn't find any source that asserts notability. Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - Passes the letter of WP:BIO criterion... "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." This authors books have been reviewed by at least two reliable sources [4] [5] and another article about him in The Telegraph [6] . The nom's contention that the Deccan Herald review and article [7] is a press release is simply wrong and the review is even credited to the writer Tarun Cherian. --Oakshade 16:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The author has written a single book, and in my personal opinion the links do not establish notability. Note that such reviews appear for many books everyday in many newspapers. Deccan Herald publishes reviews for five books every week. This is just one of them. Just having two or three reviews doesn't make a work or an author notable. The reviews do not talk about the notability of the author or his work. While I appreciate the effort that you put in wikifying this article, neither any of the links provided nor 874 Google results assert notability. The author has written only one book that doesn't meet the Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria, and as an Indian I can assure you that the book is certainly not a "cult hit". utcursch | talk 14:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Utcursch, per your comment "Just having two or three reviews doesn't make a work or an author notable," WP:BIO dissagrees with you. --Oakshade 16:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[8] is about several "MBA authors", out of which only Chetan Bhagat is notable -- the article is not about notable authors but some B-school alumni who've turned authors. [9] is a write-up on two books (the other one by Bob Hoekstra) which doesn't assert notability of either the author or the book. The review by Tarun Cherian is one of the several reviews that appear in Deccan Herald weekly under the "Browser's Nook" column sponsored by a book store. [10] is a book excerpt. These don't make up "multiple independent reviews". Besides, WP:BIO is a guideline. Name a single published author who doesn't have two or three book reviews? Such reviews appear daily -- publishers make sure they do. I don't have any enemity with this person, but there is not a single source that establishes the notability of the person. utcursch | talk 16:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If you choose to ignore WP:BIO, that's okay. Most editors dissagree. --Oakshade 16:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seemsw to be well sourced.Bakaman 18:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason for nomination is not lack of sources. It's lack of notability -- none of the sources assert notability. utcursch | talk 15:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per meeting the guidelines by providing significant sources. Though I would argue that note 1 does not support the assertion of "best seller" status. --Kevin Murray 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It's listed under "Best Sellers" for that week from a reliable source. I'm curious as to how the reference doesn't support it being a "best seller." --Oakshade 22:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The "best-seller" reference is sourced from a single book store (Crossword Book Store). The book store sponsors the book reviews section in Deccan Herald and many other newspapers. Also, the "best-seller" list is weekly. Finding a mention in a weekly "best-seller" list of a single book store doesn't make a work notable, in my opinion. The book certainly doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). utcursch | talk 14:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I feeling way to nice to express my opinion about nominations for deletion as NN with reliable sources, especially if an author was listed as best-selling Alf photoman 00:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The version that I nominated for deletion didn't say it was best seller. Also, see my comment above. The "best-seller" list is the weekly best-seller list of a single book store. utcursch | talk 14:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Even without the "best-seller" assertation, this person passes WP:BIO. --Oakshade 16:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see my reply above. Two or three reviews are available for every published author -- they don't make up "multiple independent reviews". What matters is assertion of notability. Honestly, I think you're being biased because you put a lot of effort in saving the article from prod and wikifying it. Have an honest look at the article -- is there anything that establishes notability? Authoring a book that made it to No. 3 in the weekly best-sellers list of a single book store, in some category doesn't make one notable enough for Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 16:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the charge of bad faith, but when an article subject passes the letter of WP:BIO, it's quite a simple effort, as it was with this article, to contest an imporper prod and clean-up. --Oakshade 16:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't assume bad faith -- I even stressed that I appreciate your work. I'm sorry, if I sounded otherwise. As somebody who lives in India, I personally don't think that this guy is notable enough to have an aritcle on Wikipedia. If others believe he does, I don't have a problem. utcursch | talk 17:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Multiple independent reviews of an author's book are a valid way to establish the author's notability. Please review Wikipedia:Notability (books) --Eastmain 01:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above Manzhivago
  • Keep, pretty sure that best-selling fiction authors meet WP:BIO and all that. (jarbarf) 00:47, 22 February 2007 (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.