Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pustak Mahal

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pustak Mahal[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The cited independent sources in the page history do not confirm any of the claims which were in the article. [1] and [2] are announcements of book fairs in which this company gets less than a one-line mention as one of fifty or eighty exhibitors. [3] is a blog post which has no text other than a photo caption. The rest cites the company's own website or cites Wikipedia. The history is a WP:COI mess, with contributors including user:Aman Arora PR (there was an Aman Arora as "Manager Public Relations at Pustak Mahal" at the time that edit was made, in 2010, per [4]) and user:rrashmissingh (Rashmi Singh (author) has been attempting to promote her own books on Wikipedia, two WP:AFD's are already open on this). Some of the IP editors are also in the same 117.22x.xxx.xxx range used as IP WP:SOCKs to edit Rashmi Singh and her books (which may fail WP:AUTHOR as evidenced by repeated WP:AFD rejections as "Singh Rashmi", "Rashmi Singh Author" and each book title individually, including "Love's Journey"). The text being inserted is corporate advertising, pure and simple. Once the unsourced and promotional claims are removed (which other editors have done already) there's basically nothing left of the page. It would appear the company actually does exist, but with little more than a passing mention in the WP:IRS there's not enough verifiable info for an actual Wikipedia article. I'm not denying that any article on this topic could ever exist, only that one built only with these sources and this mess of WP:COI self-promotion cannot possibly be viable. K7L (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11 - I'm doubtful that simply stating that they claim to be "the largest publisher in India" with a reference to the publisher's official website qualifies notability. It's unambiguous advertising if you ask me.Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Delete due to lack of reliable independent sources that establish notability Independent sources have been added to the article, although the coverage of the subject in the sources is little less than desired. --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 21:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 21:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I was responsible for stripping it back some months ago. I am still unable to find any acceptable sources that would suffice. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - switch to Keep, mainly due to good work of Rayabhari - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Given the 101 articles that reference "Pustak Mahal" in mainspace, editors need to either find minimal sources or find a merge target...or just leave the article as stand-alone based on satisfying WP:N as being "worthy of notice". We are here to build an encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So find either of those things. Talk about "drive-by" ... List of publishers in India, perhaps? Your suggestion, of course, is dependent on the 101 citations etc which you refer to being valid in the first instance. For example, there were once many citations to books published by Gyan, another Indian outfit, but they are gradually getting weeded out because the publisher is hopeless for our purposes, by consensus at WP:RSN, WP:MF, WT:INB etc. - Sitush (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question An editor !voting delete in this discussion just removed a sourced sentence from the article. Should this go to ANI? What do the other editors think? Unscintillating (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Report me if you want. Good luck. - Sitush (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Rayabhari, whom I have been helping out on and off, has come up with a useful newspaper report. As things stand, the article could probably be renamed "Rapidex English course (book)" or something similar. The source has only passing mentions of the company but does go into some detail about the book. - Sitush (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you, Sitush. Pustak Mahal has encyclopedic value, as it publishes large number of books in India, which include Hindi books, low cost editions of Shakespear, Sherlock Holmes (copyright period expired) etc. Regarding numbers, for example, it has published 118 fiction works mainly by Indian authors, 36 books on language learning, (mainly english), 75 books on health etc. (However, quality of some of its publications is below average. eg. : Some of the authors are Pustak Mahal Editorial Board!!!) - Rayabhari (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simple reprints of books originally published elsewhere are rarely notable in their own right, for much the same reasons that Route 66 (song) gets one article (about the original version) instead of one hundred different pages (it's been re-hashed by too many musicians for each version to be noteworthy). K7L (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rayabhari. The books published by it are available at most railway book stalls and other books shops in India. A highly visible name among book publishers in India.--Shyamsunder (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep are well known for childeren books and DIY books for kids , definitly needs a stay Shrikanthv (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2012 (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.