Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jyoti Arora

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. Missvain (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Arora

Jyoti Arora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:AUTHOR, she has created [...] a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work [has] been the primary subject [...] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews: The New Indian Express (12 December 2017), The Better India (2 September 2015), Deccan Chronicle (31 January 2018). Beccaynr (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Hey, agreed on Deccan. The New Indian Express is taking to Edex Live (part of NEI but not NEI [1] which is more of a profiling and not exactly discussing her work - and hence won't exactly be considered an independent source. The Better India is hardly reliable. I don't think this is enough. There is basically no reception of her work. The fact that she wrote the book and it exists is surely not enough. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for following up - I was concerned that my comment was less than clear. As an initial matter,
      WP:BASIC and particularly due to the depth and focus of the reporting. Beccaynr (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Hey, thanks for a detailed response. First of all, I appreciate you are defending the article in good faith! review This seems to be a blog and hence should not count to anything at all. NEI/Edexlive - I would have considered it wholly independent if it was not in a Q&A format. I won't rule it out completely but I would find it difficult to contribute to
        WP:Basic requires the coverage to be independent of the subject. I am not convinced that it is. And even if it is, we would certainly need more, won't we? My challenge is this: anyone writing multiple books and publishing them on Amazon (which ain't difficult at all now) and generate some coverage that the subject is involved in - should not be presumed notable. I would have changed my mind if there were multiple independent detailed reviews of her work at reliable publications. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Comment Hey, I have been going through everything again to ensure that I am not sending a valid article to nomination. I think our argument to notability hinges primarily on three sources. TBI article [2] also has her email id in the end and has details of her entire childhood. I don't think it can be considered an independent source. It also says 'Both her novels have garnered positive reviews from readers as well as critics.' I have not found any reviews from critics (hence my question of reliability of what is written at TBI). This being out, we are left with two. NEI/EDI [3] - again, partially independent. The 'discussion' about her books are basically few lines about the plot. I won't call it a discussion at all honestly. AND, I couldn't help but notice that 'Following her second book, Lemon Girl, which was about rape and victim-blaming, and quintessentially feminist, the trolls relentlessly sent her newspaper clippings of incidents where the opposite has been proven too.' This paragraph is absolutely same in NEI and DC article! Along with this 'The author confesses that while it was easier to write this book, it was far harder for her to imagine.' Now it looks like the two are intellectually connected and she might have just given content from her own side that was repurposed for two different articles. I have also added evidence of self-publishing at talk page. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • TBI appears to be independent due to the reporting on her life, medical condition, and advocacy, as well her career and books. The inclusion of her email address does not appear to impair its independence, including because of the context in which it is presented, i.e. her advocacy. I also think that despite its 'positivity,' it still supports
    WP:BASIC
    notability, because there are other sources that feature 'positive' stories, such as Forbes, that can support the notability of a subject. It also seems possible that the reference to 'critics,' in the context of other reporting, refers to the 'trolling' she experienced after Lemon Girls, but I do not think a vague reference to reviews impairs the support otherwise provided for her notability, especially given the variety of blog reviews that exist. Also, The NEI and DC articles are written by different authors, and while some content is similar, it is not exactly the same:

• • I also think the key for supporting
    WP:AUTHOR does not appear to require this to support BLP notability). Beccaynr (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Hey, Yes, I saw that and strikedthrough my comment on vanity press (First time I have done it and had to find out how to!). I also agree that WP:Author is not required and is an additional criteria. I still feel it doesn't meet WP:Basic, specially after the analysis since none of three sources are independent. Also, thanks for the comparison - they are not verbatim same but say the same thing essentially. It seems to be repurposed content of provided material. No two journalist will use the terms like 'quintessentially feminist' in their own intellectually independent pieces. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As noted in the table above, the two journalists did not use the term in the same manner - one used it to describe one of her books, and one put the phrase in quotes, so it appears to be independent usages of the phrase. It also apparently is how the book is known, so it does not appear to detract from the independence of writers to describe it as such; when writers describe a book by its genre, it does not impair their independence, and in this instance, the writers are not using the same term in the same way. Beccaynr (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, those two sources are definitely not independent – they are based on the same press release. That there has been minimal rephrasing does not change the fact that it is the same source, and a primary source at that. (The same PR has also been published by Asian Age.) I am going to remove the Deccan Chronicle version of the PR. I'm not sure what "when writers describe a book by its genre, it does not impair their independence" means. "Quintessentially feminist" is not a genre, it is a marketing phrase, which is presumably taken from the book's cover blurbs. --bonadea contributions talk 16:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  bonadea, do you have any evidence of this so-called press release? Beccaynr (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  "So-called"? It is a press release, as shown above. The evidence is in your own content comparison post, and in the post of mine that you responded to. The same text has been published in at least three different newspapers – this is churnalism, a very common phenomenon, and one we have to be aware of. --bonadea contributions talk 16:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  From my view, the content comparison chart shows the articles are different. The Asian Age and DC articles are the same, so only one is included in the article. But the Edexlive is obviously a different article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a matter of points of view – it is an undeniable fact that the two sources are the same. I'm not going to edit war over it as the article will be deleted anyway, but for the future it is imprtant that you realise that a press release that is slightly rephrased and re-published is the same source. In other contexts, it would have been plagiarism, but churnalism does not operate by those rules. --bonadea contributions talk 16:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – as shown above
  WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage in multiple independent sources. --bonadea contributions talk 07:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per
  WP:BASIC and Beccaynr's sources. I agree that the sources might not be of the highest quality, and its quite likely that the writers used some common source material, but calling them press releases without evidence is incorrect. The three sources presented each have credited authors, and unless there's evidence that these publishers have a reputation for unreliability or plagiarism we should assume they're legitimate. pburka (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hey

WP:BASIC would still need sources to be independent. While they might not be what a standard press release looks like, they are certainly influenced by a common source provided by the subject as demonstrated by bonadea. Having a credited author shouldn't automatically make a source independent. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• I've seen no evidence that Arora wrote any of the news reports herself, nor that they're based on something she wrote. It's pure speculation. pburka (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we already know that the Deccan Chronicle source is a press release. Compare that source with this from the Asian Age (which is not in the article). There is nothing immoral or sneaky about publishing a press release, and no reason not to acknowledge the fact that that source is a PR. The Indian Express source here is much less clear-cut: a little less than half of the text is also present in the Deccan Chronicle article (and there is no question about that part of the text having a common origin), which means that a little more than half of it is not from there. But that 55% (or however much it is) mainly consists of direct quotes from the author, which means that it is still a
    a primary source, and so it cannot be used to determine notability. I hope this makes sense. --bonadea contributions talk 14:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Repeatedly saying that something is a press release doesn't make it so. All we know with certainty is that the articles have some similar phrases. Unless you can cite the press release, or a journalist cites it, you're speculating. pburka (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The Deccan Chronicle and Asian Age articles are reprints of the same article, by the same author, which does not make it a press release, because scrolling down on the website, it is clear that Deccan and Asian Age have the same publisher. Beccaynr (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources found by User:Beccaynr showing that she meet WP:BASIC. VocalIndia (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: As a creator of this article I refrained from voting. But it has been relisted. This article clearly passes
  WP:GNG. Editors need to understand that sources vary from region to region, country to country. Sources in this one might not be of high esteem as The New York Times but they are certainly from established media in India. Dial911 (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment This is surely turning interesting and becoming a very good medium to learn (at least for me). One thing I am pretty sure is that it doesn't have enough for
  WP:GNG has no sense any more in a way. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  WP:NTEMP would clarify. Having 3-4 sources is enough for the amount of content this article has. The goal of encyclopedia is to contain information about people and things that might be useful for the readers/users. Unless a BLP is poorly sourced or infringes copyright, I don't see any reason to get it deleted. Everything else like tone, inline citations and a whole lot of other things can be fixed, and it aligns with Alternatives to Deletion policy. Ask yourself if the sources given are poor. But if you think sources are not that high quality but also not poor, then take it easy. Dial911 (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Hey

  WP:BASIC. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Nomadicghumakkad In the end it all comes down to how an editor perceive things. For me, the 3 sources The Edex Live + TBI + Deccan Chronicle are enough to establish notability NTEMP of this NPF individual. Dial911 (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Absolutely agreed on this Dial911. We are simply having a different perception here and we both have complete rights to. I also want to take a moment to appreciate the civility all of us have shown here and presented our opinions with logical reasoning. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, with +1 for civility.
  WP:LOWPROFILE, and based on the interviews she has given, the books she has written, her blogging, and her writing in The Quint, which is linked in the article, she does not appear to fit the criteria of "low-profile." Beccaynr (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Jyoti Arora is featured in many Indian renowned newspapers and she is the author of "Lemon Girl", "Dream's Sake" and some other good books. Deletion is not improvement. This article can have many improvement opportunities. Mommmyy (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources provided by Beccaynr indicate that
  WP:NAUTHOR is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This article has coverages from independent sources and it seems like passing
  talk) 02:32, 15 May 2021 (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.