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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinita Kinra[edit]

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

non notable author. The book claimed as her most important achievement is, according to worldcat, in no libraries at all. Not surprising, for it was self-published. The publishing firm listed has published nothing besides her works. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of sources on HighBeam. Brianhe (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is still questionably solid for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While there are some circumstances where even a self-published book can be enough to get a writer into Wikipedia, they're pretty rarefied and depend on the ability to source the topic over WP:GNG (Terry Fallis, who won a notable literary award for a self-published first novel, is the textbook example of how this can happen — and the book promptly got bought up by a major publishing imprint which also released his followup works anyway, so his notability didn't actually stay dependent on self-published work for very long.) But the sourcing here doesn't cut it: it's all primary sources, deadlinks and small-market weekly newspapers which can't carry notability, with no evidence of solidly reliable source coverage shown. A writer does not gain an automatic entitlement to keep a poorly sourced article just because she exists; a valid notability claim under WP:AUTHOR, and valid sourcing to support it, have to be shown. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when her notability and sourceability improve. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~ Reason of deletion is given that the book is not available in any library which is a lie.

Pavitra in Paris is available in the following prominent libraries in Canada:

1. Vancouver Public Library https://vpl.bibliocommons.com/item/show/3637451038_pavitra_in_paris

2. Greater Victoria Public Library : https://gvpl.ent.sirsidynix.net/client/en_US/default/search/detailnonmodal/ent:$002f$002fSD_ILS$002f0$002fSD_ILS:287998/one?qu=pavitra+in+paris

3. Richmond Public Library (Canada): https://yourlibrary.bibliocommons.com/item/show/1011426101_pavitra_in_paris

4.Markham Public Library: https://markham.bibliocommons.com/item/show/581988034_pavitra_in_paris

5. Fraser Valley Regional Library: https://fvrl.bibliocommons.com/item/show/1656671021_pavitra_in_paris

Please note: Vancouver Public Library is one of the 3 best and largest libraries in Canada.

News and Interview on Vinita Kinra:

1. CBC Radio Interview: http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2439827995

2. ICI Radio Canada (French interview) (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): http://ici.radio-canada.ca/emissions/L_heure_de_pointe_Toronto/2013-2014/archives.asp?date=2015%2F02%2F06&indTime=1648&idmedia=7240348&fb_ref=Default

3. The South Asian Times (NY Page 24) http://www.scribd.com/doc/217609558/Vol-6-Issue-50-April-12-18-2014

4.The Mississauga News: http://www.mississauga.com/community-story/4391260-author-inspires-newcomer-women-through-talk/

5. Canadian Race Relations Foundation (CRRF) (Government): http://www.crrf-fcrr.ca/en/our-canada/150-stories/search-150-stories/item/25815-canada-42-150-vinita-kinra

6. Montreal Serai (Book review) http://montrealserai.com/2014/03/22/pavitra-in-paris-stories-for-life-by-vinita-kinra/

7. CSI Viamonde (French) : http://csviamonde.ca/Viamonde/nouvelles/2014-2015/Pages/%C3%80-Viamonde,-on-souligne-le-Mois-de-l%E2%80%99histoire-des-Noirs.aspx

8. Writer Story: http://www.writerstory.com/vinita-kinra-interview-pavitra-in-paris-book/

9. Uber Quotes: http://www.uberquotes.net/quotes/authors/vinita-kinra/page/2

10. Beach Bound Books: http://www.beachboundbooks.com/author-interviews/author-interview-vinita-kinra

--150.107.40.40 (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable sourcing for a Wikipedia article, pretty much right across the board. Going over them one by one: #1 and #2 = interviews on local radio programs. Interviews with the subject, in any format, are acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after WP:GNG has already been met, but cannot count toward the meeting of GNG as they represent the subject talking about herself. And both of them are on single-market local radio programs, not national ones broadcast by the entire CBC Radio or Ici Première networks, so claiming that the interviews were broadcast nationally would be wrong. #3 and #4 = community weekly newspapers, not widely distributed enough to count toward GNG. Again acceptable for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has been met, but not able to assist in establishing the meeting of GNG. #5 = not media, but a press release on the website of an affiliated organization — and the bylined author is the subject's own husband, which would disqualify it as WP:COI even if it were in real media. #6 = WP:BLOGS don't count as reliable sourcing. #7 = not media, but a press release on the website of a school board. #8 = BLOGS. #9 = not media coverage, but a user-generated database of quotations from her own work, which anybody can add themselves to. #10 = interview on a blog, disqualified by what I've already said about both interviews and blogs.

And if you're going to claim notability because library holdings, it takes a lot more than five library holdings to get there — and regardless of the notability claim being made, none of Wikipedia's inclusion standards can ever be passed just by asserting that they've been passed. An inclusion criterion is passed or failed on the quality of the reliable source coverage you can provide to support the accuracy of the claim to passage — but you have yet to show any acceptable sourcing at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show this subject passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:08, 20 February 2016 (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.