Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikhil Parekh

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikhil Parekh

Nikil Parekh looks at first glance to be notable, what with the many awards and 120,000 Google hits. However, looking through the many links from the page, it's noticeable that they are all to paid-for groups, blogs, the poet's own website, vanity presses and so forth. In other words, though a strenuous and successful self-promoter, there are no sources meeting WP:BIO that substantiate the poet's notability. The record book mentioned is run by Coca-Cola in India as a promotional gimmick and does not check the "world records" it prints. Equally, it is noticeable that the poet's website lists his Wikipedia article as an achievement. Taken together with the article creator's work on Only as Life (also up for deletion), and his contributions to other articles and debate, I think there is some evidence of a walled garden being created. Vizjim 12:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep of this great article on Nikhil Parekh- I really dont understand what's all this debate about Nikhil Parekh. People here who are trying to remove him from Wiki, are downright jealous , nothing else. Parekh, conforms with all WIKI guidelines, and he is indeed India's most famous poet. The Limca Book of Records is ranked only 2nd to Guinness Book. How can you say that its a mockery or something illegitimate. Its the biggest record book of its kind in India representing more than 1 billion Indians across the world. Parekh has entered it twice in a year. His other records are truly international. For instance, his awards at Preditors and Editors, Poemhunter, the EPPIE award which again is the highest honor given to ebooks today, are all noteworthy and to International standards. I think we must divert our energies to other people here at Wiki, rather than get after Parekh, after all what he's achieved. Wiki is not a ramification of enviousness for a particular person or in this case a notable poet. And how many times should I reiterate that I'm not Parekh, this is really outrageous and invokes some action against those who are saying so. I'm just doing my best to create and edit wiki pages, as per wiki standards. My aim is not to promote Parekh, but to ensure that the best stays here at Wiki. Before you comment please research. Atleast research Limca Book of Records in India, and you would find that its the biggest record book of its kind in India and only 2nd to guinness book in the World. And again as I'm iterating above, all of Parekh's other international awards and acclaim are truly prestigious. He's published in the Commonwealth Magazine, now would you call that a gimmick too. This is really outrageous and a downright mockery, an envious interpretation of a world famous poet, simply to tarnish his image here. I would implore Wiki people themselves to carry out extensive researches on Parekh before thinking of removing this wonderful wiki article on him. After all the success that he's attained has really done India proud and so the world. There's no point deliberating about his awards and acclaim, as research would show that its truly noteworthy. I feel its a situation as absurd as this, that next people would start challenging the credibility of the Booker or Pulitzer prize and then say that those who've won it are self promoting themselves , and should be removed from Wikipedia. Truly and irately preposterous. Coolkeg908 13:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Note - Coolkeg908's contribution history shows only contributions to debate on the name Parekh, creation of article on Nikhil Parekh, creation of article on poems by Nikhil Parekh, and insertion of Nikhil Parekh's name into various other articles, including one on the film Titanic. Vizjim 13:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Supporting my argument-Well quite untrue. I have also edited sections on Poets, Poems, adding vital informations to other poetry communities, international poetry groups on the Internet. And, yes, I agree that my contributions have been mostly pertaining to Parekh. But what's wrong with that. I am a great reader of all his works and have researched several of his works thoroughly. I also see several several other wiki editors like me here, who have worked on a particular individual/person, as their research base on that person is almost picture perfect. In my case, I can say that about Parekh. Since I have studied thousands of pages on him over the Internet and elsewhere. I have studied him in national news, periodicals, websites, groups and have followed his poetic creations worldwide. Thus am emphatic to list his name at places here and contribute the most authentic information about him. So what's wrong in that. Which Wiki rule specifies that you cannot singularly contribute about a person. Or, as according to you, that if you do indeed contribute singularly about a specific person, then you yourself are that person. Its preposterous and absurd. Stop this babyish enviousness and concentrate upon the context of your debate. Wiki is not guided by personal enviousnesses or kidplay's of removing or keeping an article. It goes on articulately assembled facts and figures. May they be provided by anyone on earth, it doesnt matter. Facts and figures if they are legitimate and noteworthy, then Wiki would place them, irrespective of whatever bias people might have to this issue. And in Parekh's case, as I've also said above, the facts rule. His awards and international acclaim, his other records and stuff are simply incredible. Do thorough research Jim before you come to conclusions , come up with logical (not emotional arguments) to support your clauses and then suggest deletion . Best to you. I hate the prospect of this becoming a personally quagmired warfield here, rather than basing its judgements upon legitimate facts and figures concerning the poet. Coolkeg908 13:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Mild Delete and Comment Actually, we're not here to do the research for you. If certain editors want a page to exist, it's up to them to make sure that page meets the criteria for existing. This guy may be a great poet and you (and many others) may love his work, but all of that is 100% irrelevant. The question is simply: does his page contain enough information that is verifiable from reliable sources to prove his notability. As it stands, even the notability of the Limca_Book_of_Records is in question. Without something outside this house of cards to support notability, delete. DMacks 05:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Supporting my argument for Limca Book of Records India, which lists Parekh as a World Record Holder- Jim you mention above, or rather make a mockery of Limca Book of Records India which is run on the patronage of Coca-Cola India. I just felt like putting my points forward regards this. Each country, most of the developed countries have their own book of records. India is almost the world's largest population. It has a more than a billion indians. Limca Book of Records is the only book after the Guinness Book of World Records in the world, in official world rankings. For a verification of this, please do various searches and research on Limca Book and you will know. It represents the pride and honor of more than a billion Indians. It documents all its records very scrupulously and verifies each of them to excruciating limits of detail and authenticity, just like guinness book of world records. I have known many other book of records like Singapore Book of Records documenting records by people of Singapore, then there's a Malaysian book of records documentiing records by people of Malaysia. But out of all them countrywise, the Limca Book of Records India is the only of its kind next to Guinness, as its been in operations since the last 17 yrs in India. The longest standing record book to Guinness Book in the World. All other record books of other countries are just a thing of recent past, maximum 4 to 5 yrs in existence. Limca Book of Records India is available from all major online outlets and across the World. A close look at its contents, spanning nearly more than 500 pages in each of its annual edition, would reveal that it goes to great depths to authenticate all its records and record holders and gives them record breakers certificates just like Guinness Book does. How can you say that it doesnt verify its world records. For that matter you'd say that every other record book , including Guinness, just lists its records without verifying them. Now this is really absurd. There's no record book born like that. They are all authentic in their own respects, representing their countries and bringing out the best of their countrymen , record breaking feats, chronicled in a book. Parekh is listed twice in Limca Book of Records . His website shows his National Certificate of Honor for his records with the Book. These are great honors from a great record book, that he's achieved for his poetry. Limca Book of World Records, Record holders regularly appear on all television programmes, media, all across the world, just like Guinness Book. Such is the significance of this book in which Parekh has been listed for two records in the space of 1 year. Next time, before you propound forward an argument or make a mockery of a world class organization such as Limca book of records, please come up with accurate facts and figures, otherwise such is considered unethical emotionalism. I agree, that the Limca Book of Records article here at Wiki is a stub, I have myself tried and expanded it . And am still working on the same, with my research on various things . Best, I'd propose, you buy a copy of the Limca Book of Records from any reputed store on the Internet, such as ebay, or amazon or the likes. Once you have the physical edition in your hands, and have seen the facts figures documented, the painstaking depths to which they've been researched just like Guinness, then please lay your suggestions here. I already have the physical edition of the book with me and am therefore speaking my opinions of the same, after witnessing more than 10000 records covering multitudinal spectrums of arts/culture and human achievement by more than 10000 record holders across India and of Indian origin. The very fact that Nikhil Parekh is listed twice in the Limca book of records, is a matter of great honor for the world. More specifically, both his records in the book, if you closely observed are for very prestigious categories. One for receiving and writing the most number of letters to World Leaders and Organizations and the other for being India's only Eppie award winner. Both International caliber records in an equally adept Record book of Indian origin, functioning as the largest of its kind in the country, since last 17 yrs. Coolkeg908 14:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Having done a fair bit of research and perused WP:BIO I'm on the Weak Delete side of the fence. It's a weak one because there are sources, but they appear to be self-publicising in nature. OBM | blah blah blah 14:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • For the life of me, I cannot see any sources or things in his bio which are self publicizing. They are all facts assembled together to form a wiki sketch on him. Facts, just like assembled in several thousand other wiki articles of encyclopedic level. So what's wrong in highlighting the facts. And each wiki article for that matter appears a bit self publicizing, as it portrays the achievement of notable people/organizations and things. Its a strong keep, not weak delete. Unless, someone brings to light something unauthenticated in this article, or conflicting with the facts and figures involved, I dont think there's any reason to delete. Coolkeg908 15:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, no opinion at this time, but I removed some links that didn't comply with WP:EL, tagged it for copyediting, and tagged every claim that needs a source. If kept this article needs a lot of work to get to the point of being a decent encyclopedia article.--Isotope23 17:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete Yes, Nikhil Pareh gets twice as many Google hits as, say, Yannis Ritsos. However, they appear to be mainly the result of self-promotion on a staggering, mind-bogging scale. There may be an achievement of sorts here, but it does not make him a notable poet. Stammer 17:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

    • Opinion-Well when a person is famous, and when you google search him or search on him on virtually any search engine, virtually lacs of results come up. I have known poets better than Parekh, who have earned accolades and when searched upon in search engines, they yield lacs of results. So what, if Parekh yields lacs of results when searched. Thats thanks to his accolades. I've never seen anyone put in, what you call extra effort to make more search engine results. If you're well spread, in this case as his poems are published at countless websites, its ostensible that the search results would be mind boggling. Nothing wrong with that. Doesnt prove that he's self promoting. There are thousands of writers inferior/superior to him, who yield better results in search. That doesnt imply that they self promote or are bogus. Just that their work is well spread and well recognized, well affiliated and networked globally, that's why the mind boggling number of search results. Its perfectly OK. As far providing resources and authentication to all his awards a simple click to his website would pacify all queries. All certificates, original documentation and everything to the minutest of detail is listed here at his site, in the awards section of it. Also there are countless other places on the internet where the same can be verified in their original forms. Mind you, even the biggest names out there in the industry, who're writers/poets and creative writers of all kinds self promote, so in the first case there's nothing wrong with that. And, if there are lacs of search results to your name, that doesnt necessarily imply that you self promote. It is just that you are well networked/affiliated and published across the globe in countless magazines and websites, that they show up. The more famous an individual, the more are the search results on him. So what's odd. Why be envious or bring the emotional quotient again. There's no need to compare if Parekh has more search results to his name than his other contemporaries, or lesser than them. That's not the issue. Issue is verification and meeting WIKI standards. And research yields on Parekh, all that is said in his bio. Coolkeg908 18:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement. He has a very enthusiastic promotion department - as evident in this thread - but it's too bad that no reliable sources attesting to his notability under WP:BIO have been forthcoming. Sandstein 18:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Opinion on your downright rudeness-Who gave you the right to call me a promotion department. I am just a fellow wiki editor like you here , authenticating information and leading to the most trusted sources to articles. Its downright rude and contemptuous of you to call me promotion department. I am just here and doing my best I can to authenticate information and provide as much editing as possible to the article, improving it and leading to the best sources of verification. If you have a comment to leave you are most welcome, or for that matter a counter argument. But this is no way of answering back and labeling someone as lower than you. We’re all equal rights here as wiki editors. Please don’t denigrate your fellow people who are also and equally trying their best to do their job. I hope you get my point. So lets stick to the credibility of this article and its verifications. And for verification of all of Parekh’s records and achievements his website as well countless other sources on the Internet can be looked upon . At a click verifications can be yielded. Those who say, things cannot be verified are being lacking information and not taking the pains to verify and research further. Anyways, please curb now from any name calling or rudeness. Thanks. Coolkeg908 18:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, well. I didn't name any names - but if you do not want to be called a promotion department, it would probably help if your contributions also included at least some edits not related to the promotion of Nikhil Parekh. Sandstein 21:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete [Change of mind to delete - see below] He's gaining notice as a poetic blogger (rather than as a literary poet recognised by the establishment), but I don't see that he meets WP:BIO with independent sources. Things like a two-line mention by Reuters in Oddly Enough [1] don't go far enough! Mereda 18:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in that it mostly fails [WP:BIO]]. That's not to say that I disagree with Coolkeg908, but that the sources are almost all self-promoting, and the whole point of notability is that OTHERS note him independant of his own self-promotion efforts. Also, I must say that Coolkeg908 is taking this waaaaaaaaaaay too personally, and everyone needs to cool off. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 19:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS. Those books of his are on a vanity press. ergot 23:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 00:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 00:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Opinion Poetry Books-His poetry books are not even mentioned in his biography. There is just an external link to them. Most poets, even the award winning ones here at Wiki self publish. And no, they are not vanity presses where he's published. Those places if you investigate and research further are major print on demand digitial marketplaces. The author doesnt pay a penny to publish. Its all technology oriented and making latest use of technology. Also this is only his list of publishers who've published him in book form. If you see the magazines and websites of the world that have published him, individually for his poems--then you'd come to know that there are names like the Commonwealth Magazine involved which are the best in the world today. Research, research and more research before basing your opinions. There's no point getting after someone without details, facts and figures. I iterate again. Books are just a part of his biography. There are several other aspects to it as well, like winning the EPPIE award for best poetry which is one of the most prestigious awards in the world today awarded to ebooks. Then he's there in the Limca Book of Records, refer to my discussion to that above. He's also featured in the top 10 rankings of Preditors and Editors readers poll, again a very prestigious readers poll in the world, which is also listed at Wiki. There's just too much to this poet as far as credibility is concerned and doesnt make a strong candidature for delete. Coolkeg908 07:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to the page, the EPPIE award is barely "to him" at all, and virtually all the other things are unsubstantiated. Without external citations, that information can't be considered reliable at all. If there are awards and things that bolster this poet's claim to faim, now is the time for to prove it by adding info, including verifiable and reliable external citations, to the page. DMacks 08:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reaffirming my Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 09:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, obviously fails WP:BIO with the sources, as pointed out, being self publicizing. If sources can be provided of awards and mentions that are not of this type please add them to the article and comment on my talk page and I will give my input a second look over. --NuclearZer0 20:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Coolkeg's behaviour rings alarm bells. --SandyDancer 01:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

i think this article is fine...i enjoyed it throughly...

  • Comment. Sigh. Despite the inevitable tirade that this will unleash, I am sorry to have to bring new information to the table. I have this morning received an email from Vijaya Ghose, editor of the Limca Book of Records. "Dear Mr (----),

We have enlisted a couple of claims of Nikhil Parekh. Longest Poem is not one of them. He has formidable competition in John Milton's Paradise Lost and our own Mahabharata. However, he has written to many heads of state and has received replies but not from the head of state but the secretary or executive assistant. He is is the first from India to feature on Eppie. We checked with them. Regards Vijaya Ghose. So Parekh, though probably not notable as a poet, is indeed an Indian world record holder. I suspect that this changes the balance on his notability, though the article would still require a great deal of clear-up. I will notify everyone who took part in this vote and ask admins to extend debate a little. Sorry. Vizjim 05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    • Reaffirming weak delete. Without evidence that the Eppie award decision was substantially to him or based on his contribution to the compilation, I too see no notability as a poet. I don't think "first X ethnicity to in any way contribute to Y thing" is a point of more global renown. Which leaves the corresponding-with-leaders record. It's an interesting acchievement, but still fairly limited how truly notable that acchievement is in terms of WP:BIO for the person. DMacks 06:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Still weak Delete Upon inspection (see [2]) the "corresponding-with-leaders record" boils down to polite routine replies by their secretaries. The guy's persistence however is somewhat extraordinary. Stammer 07:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Wow, I hadn't even considered "responses" could include just "thanks for writing" form letters. Yeah, that's not so notable-sounding at all. DMacks 19:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete [Changed from weak delete] One EPPIE, for a piece with multiple authors, isn't impressive. Or does anyone want to argue for comprehensive coverage of all EPPIE winners? :) Mereda 08:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reaffirming my above Delete per DMacks. Sandstein 09:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • For the avoidance of doubt, I am still saying delete. --SandyDancer 10:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reaffirming my above Delete; world record for writing a bunch of letters to heads of state? That just makes him a spammer. ergot 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Even stronger delete I strongly doubt that everyone who holds a Guinness World Record has an article, much less the holder of some regional "world" record. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 02:04, 8 November 2006 (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.