Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Sai Deepak (2nd nomination)

Add links
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. Seems no doubt that NAUTHOR is met. Spartaz Humbug! 06:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J. Sai Deepak[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

J. Sai Deepak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted in December 2020 pursuant to a deletion discussion. Recreated in June 2023. Evaluation of the references are below but subject fails WP:ANYBIO. I noted the dates so it can be seen if there are any significant changes since the 2020 deletion. CNMall41 (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my evaluation of the sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Business Standard – (July 2018) Reliable source but it is written by “Indian News” with not byline. Publication is known for being a content farm so source is questionable imho.
  • Indian Express – (July 2018) Talks about a case he was involved in and not about him.
  • Mumbai Mirror – (August 2018) Reads like a puff piece so not sure if we can consider it reliable. Owned by The Times Group with this discussion (although only one comment) from WP:RSN.
  • The Print – (June 2018) Never heard of publication prior to this but the article only contains quotes from the subject about a legal case so not significant.
  • Live Mint – (October 2020) Branded post (sponsored or paid for) so not reliable.
  • The Quint – (February 2020) Talks about a court case he argued but is more about the case than about him.
  • The Hindu – (May 2022) Another that talks about a case he argued but is more about the case than him.
  • Time of India – (February 2023) Brief mention. Article also has no byline and is likely part of paid content as recently discussed at RSN.
  • India Today – (November 2022) – Another one with byline of “India Today Web Desk” so no actual author and indicates more content farm as noted in the RSN discussion above.
  • Google link to search results – Original research. Points to no actual reference.
  • First Post – Subjects author profile. Not in-depth about the subject.
  • First Post – (September 2022) – This is a good article and thought it would be useful. However, the disclaimer at the bottom says “This author is opinion editor……views expressed are personal.”
  • The Print – (May 2022) This has a section about his book, but not in-depth about him. Could possibly be used to show notability for the book, but not for him personally in my opinion.
  • The Sunday Guardian – (October 2021) I will assume this is reliable for the book (not him), although I cannot find any editorial standards. There is a Wikipedia page about the publication so absent a discussion I am not sure.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes NAUTHOR as his books has been subject of multiple reviews. Firstpost, Vivekananda Institute Of Professional Studies, Business Line, O. P. Jindal Global University and The Sunday Guardian. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Multiple reviews" is just one portion of WP:NAUTHOR. The book itself would ALSO need to be "significant or well-known." Having a few reviews only verifies its existence. In addition, I previously cited sources such as First Post and stated why I feel they are not notable. I am seeing a lot of these types of references being part of content farms and believe this is also the case here with some of the references you cited. No byline, no editorial oversight, or written in a promotion manner. That aside, how do we know the book is significant of well-know? Was it possibly on a bestseller list? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Multiple reviews" is a criteria for meeting notability guidelines. There are four criteria for NAUTHOR and it is not necessary to meet all fours.
We can say that the book is notable and "significant or well-known." because as per NBOOK, if 'The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.', then the 'book is presumed notable'. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source Analysis
1 - Firstpost - Reliable website which has detailed review about his book.
2 - Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies - Reliable journal which has detailed review about his book.
3 - Business Line - Reliable newspaper which has detailed review about his book.
4 - O. P. Jindal Global University - Press Release by Staff
5 - The Sunday Guardian - Reliable newspaper which has detailed review about his book. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It means that the writer passes NAUTHOR and his book also passes NBOOK. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"There are four criteria for NAUTHOR and it is not necessary to meet all fours" - You are correct. The issue is that you stated it meets one of the four (NA3), yet only quoted part of that one which supported your contention. You stated it must have multiple reviews but left out the part of NA3 that states "significant or well-known." --CNMall41 (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are mixing two notability guidelines. The book must be significant or well-known. Just because a book meets Wikipedia notability guidelines does not mean that it is significant or well-known. Under WP:NBOOK, two reviews would qualify a book for a Wikipedia page. So maybe a book would qualify for a Wikipedia page but that doesn't fit the well-known criteria. If that were the case, anyone can self-publish a book, get two reviews on it, then qualify for an author Wikipedia page based on those reviews. I also think your assessment of significant coverage is wrong as you cited a press release which I have never seen used to establish notability for anything on Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in but the existence of reviews or other independent sources IS what establishes notability. It's entirely possible for a hypothetical self-published book to meet notability guidelines while something from a big publisher doesn't, it's just that books from big publishers are more likely to become well known. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to butt in of course. You are correct about the reviews making a book notable. However, a book being notable for Wikipedia does not mean that it is "significant or well-known." I think the argument for !Keep in this case is that there is a presumption that if a book has a Wikipedia page it is significant, but that is not the case based on my previous statements above. It simply means it qualifies for a Wikipedia page and there is no inherent notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting because there are two contradictory views on whether or not book reviews received by the article subject are sufficient to establish his own notability. More opinions and review of all of these sources would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per @LordVoldemort728:'s sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete I think the book is more notable than the person here. Book reviews are fine, but if the rest of the sourcing isn't up to snuff, you can't really build an article about the author. Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Notable Indian people mostly do not have any references which aren't Indian newspapers, however this doesn't mean articles about these people are not notable. Articles in newspaper columns which have syndicated ads on their webpage or are tagged sponsored aren't sponsored by the person the article is about, the ads are put up by an automated ad engine and regularly change. Also I'm inclined to agree with @LordVoldemort728, the 4 criteria in NAUTHOR are met as analysed below:
    1. The 2 books written by the author have been cited by peers. The citations for the 1st one are available here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=835200378983711540&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en, the citations for the second one haven't come in since this book is relatively recent.
    2. The author has significantly advanced the understanding of Decoloniality, the Two-nation theory and the Constitution of India. He has also contributed tremendously to intellectual property law & its interpretation in India as one of his blogs has been cited by the Madras High Court in a judicial decision. Now should only that blog post be eligible to have a Wikipedia article, and not the author? Clearly the author isn't notable only for his 2 books but also his blogs & research papers, which have a decent number of citations & good h-index scores.
    3. The author has created a significant body of work, including but not limited to: books, blogs, newspaper articles, research papers, lectures, speeches, forum discussions.
    4. The author's work has attracted a lot of critical attention as evidenced by the citations & reviews, so NAUTHOR (4c) is satisfied. The author's work is also represented within the permanent collections of multiple notable galleries, including the European Parliament, multiple universities including but not limited to Harvard Law School & the University of Oxford, the British Library among many others, as evidenced by the WorldCat results: https://www.worldcat.org/title/1263872808, https://www.worldcat.org/title/1346408038.
    Overall, NAUTHOR says even if only the book/body of work of an author is notable, the author is still found to be notable. Would like to know your thoughts @CNMall41, thanks for the stimulating & civil discussion. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"NAUTHOR says even if only the book/body of work of an author is notable, the author is still found to be notable" - Where does it say that? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
''This guideline applies to authors ... and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
  3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
  4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."
In my opinion all 4 conditions above have been met as explained in the comment you replied to. I would be glad to provide more evidence of this criteria being met if required. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since you mentioned Indian newspapers, take note of this reference you just added from LiveMint which is a branded post. See WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out. My apologies. In the case of LiveMint, I didn't notice the article was authored by HT Brand Studio, which is indeed their advertising desk. I have changed the references & replaced them with articles not written by advertising desks/sponsored articles. If you do find any more changes in the references which need to be made, please let me know, I will search for reliable sources to replace them. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe this subject passes all 4 of the criteria, I believe you misunderstand the guideline. What references show he passes all 4? It is not about someone believing he is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers," it is about the references demonstrating such. Same for the other 3. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence for criteria #1 (citations): This is the author's Google Scholar Page: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22J.+Sai+Deepak%22. He has a total of 60 citations for his research papers/books, I believe this is a good number of citations. Also, he has been cited by the Madras High Court in one of its judgements, this court is the Indian equivalent of a US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. I believe this satisfies the 1st point.
Evidence for criteria #2: It is hard to prove whether someone has originated a new theory, idea or concept. However, the reviews pointed out by @LordVoldemort728 show that the author's books have significantly advanced the understanding of decoloniality, the Two Nation Theory and the Constitution of India.
Evidence for criteria #3: The author's Google Scholar Page, his books, speeches, lectures, forum discussions & arguments in courts of law do constitute a significant body of work. They have also been subjected to independent critical review as pointed out by @LordVoldemort728.
Evidence for criteria #4: This person's work has indeed attracted significant critical attention and has become a part of the permanent collections of several notable galleries/libraries. Linking the WorldCat results once again: https://www.worldcat.org/title/1263872808, https://www.worldcat.org/title/1346408038. Book #1 is a permanent part of 81 libraries, Book #2 is part of 22 libraries. These lists include the European Parliament, Harvard Law School, University of Harvard, the British Library among many other such institutions which are notable. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are going to have to agree to disagree at this point. Also, "galleries/libraries" is not the guideline. It is "galleries or museums." Please do not misrepresent what the guideline says. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I did not intend to misinterpret the guidelines. Will you be deleting this article or not, then? Is there an option for a poll, could we do one? PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
60 citations for a legal scholar is abysmally low. -- asilvering (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is a paucity of research in India, especially legal research, so citations are mostly by non-Indian researchers. In such a scenario, even 60 citations are good enough to feature on the list of most cited Indian legal scholars. Refer this list: https://allaboutil.wordpress.com/2021/10/13/top-cited-international-law-scholars-in-india/, the author concerned here would be at number 19 with the number of his citations. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also most of his work hasn't been published in research journals but on blogs. Citations of blog posts aren't accepted by Wikipedia as far as I know, I might be wrong though. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @CNMall41 (please excuse me for the unsolicited tag), I've changed most of the newspaper sources to ProQuest links. I wasn't able to find replacements for 4 sources though, which I've not changed. Please let me know if there is more that can be done to improve the reliability of the sources. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The proquest pieces are just summaries of other news articles. How would these count for notability?--CNMall41 (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't just summaries, they are verbatim copies of the newspaper articles which were earlier cited for this page. ProQuest hosts only notable print newspapers and their articles, you can check out their notability requirements at this link: https://pq-static-content.proquest.com/collateral/media2/documents/newsresources-catalog.pdf. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. They are copies of the exact same references already listed in my previous assessment. As such, they wouldn't add to notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would the Conflict of Interest which requires a warning in this case be? Or maybe I'm misinterpreting what COI means, PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    1. Covered by ample RSE'S.
    2. Noted Indian Litigator who is/was involved in high profile cases/PIL like same-sex marriage etc.
    3. Meets WP:GNG BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer - There are additional "!Votes" on the talk page of this AfD for your consideration. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Sai_Deepak_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1173093326"