Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Rajiva (3rd 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lila Rajiva

[edit]
Lila Rajiva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This AFD was started by an anonymous user, who added the following comment at Talk:Lila Rajiva:

AFD: Vanity article and Wikipedia:Notability

This AFD page itself was started by Persianq with the "I do not understand..." paragraph; because it was not created properly, I'm formatting it.

Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFDs

Discussion

[edit]
  • "Keep" It seems odd that Lila Rajiva could have become less worthy of a Wikipedia entry the since the last unsuccessful attempts to nominate this entry for deletion in early 2006. On the contrary, since 2006 she has published a second book (which was awarded a getabstract award in 2008) and scores of articles appearing both in print and online. Her texts have since been used as college texts at Amherst College, Vassar College, St. Andrews University (just to name a few of which I am certain). If this entry should not have been deleted in 2006, it should certainly not be deleted now. --KingMontmorency (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This series of deletion nominations is nothing other than an attempt at character assasination. This matter has been brought up twice before. To argue the Lila Rajiva is not accomplished enough as a writer is simply an attack upon what she says. I have been reading her work for several years. To give in to such snide attacks as is currently launched upon Rajiva would be a great mistake. That is an informed opinion. Sincerely, John Tinker (Tinker v. Des Moines). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntinker (talk • contribs) 03:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Procedural keep: no reason given for deletion. I missed the (brief) deletion rationale on the article's talk page. However this AfD is still incomplete. Finally! Hairhorn (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is absolutely no reason to delete this entry from Wikipedia. Lila Rajiva is supremely talented author, blogger, and free-thinker. This appears to be the work of an "anonymous" detractor with some type of agenda. I sincerely hope that you take her entire body of work into consideration and allow this Wikipedia entry to remain intact.--Efowlk1 (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the person that tagged this for deletion. A proper reason for deletion was given on the articles discussion page, which is what wikipedia instructed me to do. This author is not notable and this is a vanity page, evidenced by the recent edits removing unproven assertions that Lila was 'first' to write about various subjects. I'm sure Lila appreciates all of her blogging friends circling the wagons to vote keep as they seemingly have every time this article is nominated for deletion, but this author clearly is not notable enough to merit having a wikipedia page with only two published works in her career. I would like to take this time to remind everyone that participates in this discussion that there is a wikipedia guideline about biased canvasing, and your similarly worded assertions that this person is a prolific author, blogger, etc do not make it so. Thanks for reading.74.237.158.41 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Wiley Publishing is a major publisher, it was done through an outfit named Agora Publishing. This seems to be a vanity press for Bill_Bonner, co-author of the book published by Wiley. Other issues can be resolved through editing, but previous self-promotional edits can be used as clues as to why this article exists in the first place, and why it continues to exist. For instance, this article was originally created by a politically motivated individual promoting his conspiratorial viewpoint on the attacks of September 11, 2001. Many of this persons articles were deleted, but this one remained. I looked at the previous AfD and could only determine that it was kept because of biased canvasing through blogs and indymedia type outlets. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your statement in your original comment, " I'm sure Lila appreciates all of her blogging friends circling the wagons to vote keep as they seemingly have every time this article is nominated for deletion..." reveals you as having a personal agenda, most likely related to recent posts on her blog regarding Agora and Bonner. Perhaps you have no recourse through the courts and are using wiki to continue a vendetta that has nothing to do with Rajiva's accomplishments as a writer.--Persianq (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what article you are referring to. The only reason I made an accusation of circling the wagons was that this AfD was responded to by 5 or 6 different contributors before I had figured out how to add it to the AfD log. These comments were within a few hour period after she added a notice on her blog. Thanks for understanding. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lila mentioned to me about the notice of deletion and I made a post in defense, she then asked how I did this and I explained (even though it was improperly formatted; I blame my n00bity). Her blog post...a natural response it seems to me...was subsequent, just to clear things up.--Persianq (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of Rajiva's books has received an award which Wikipedia treats as notable; the book is definitely not published by a vanity press, but by a publisher that Publisher's Weekly treats as legitimate [1] (which should end that discussion). All the interpersonal differences which dominate this discussion should be ignored. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are no interpersonal differences other than that this author has admitted to canvassing and continues to canvas on her blog which violates the spirit of Wikipedia. Wiley is not Agora Publishing. Agora Publishing is a self-publishing firm owned and operated by Bill Bonner, one of the authors of the 2nd book Lila has written. Bill Bonner bears all cost of publishing the books through Agora Publishing. Anyways, the outlet of a piece of literature doesn't make it notable. Notability makes it notable. Additionally, if you click on the award you mentioned GetAbstract_International_Book_Award you will see that 50% of the authors there do not have wikipedia articles. Why does a coauthor of a book that won this award need one? Obviously winning this award does not make one notable. Being notable makes one notable. I hope you understand. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: The article you have referenced does not mention Agora Publishing anywhere in its text. Anyways, the argument is that the outlet of a work somehow makes it notable. This argument was brought up because this author has written only two non notable books. I disagree that the outlet or quantity of books written really matters. What does matter is that this person is not notable from a historical perspective, and nobody here has proven that they are. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Since you're claiming that a Publishers Weekly article including the phrase "Wiley signed a deal with the financial newsletter publisher Agora Publishing" does not mention Agora Publishing, I think you've made your lack of good faith even clearer than all your wikilawyering did. Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination by disruptive anon editor. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Rock on Edison. Joe Chill (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just to show the self referential nature of these articles and promotions, please consider that MoneyWeek is owned by Agora Publishing, the same company that published the book. Even then, a handful of articles about a person do not make them notable enough to include in an encyclopaedia. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Actually they do satisfy WP:N, since "a handful" is "multiple." And I do not buy the silly claim that Money Week seeks to bolster the income of Wiley, or another major publisher. They may be insufficient to make you like the subject of the article though. The threshold for keeping an article in AFD does not go up or down based on how much you like it. This waould be plenty for the average AFD. Edison (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: From MoneyWeek "It is owned by MoneyWeek Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of U.S.-based Agora Inc headed by Bill Bonner." Bill Bonner is a coauthor of the book "Mobs, messiahs, and markets." Just because a book was reviewed does not make it notable. The spirit of WP:N is lucid: "For instance, the notability of a parent topic (of a parent-child "tree") is not inherited by subordinate topics, nor is notability inherited "upwards", from a notable subordinate to its parent." Is this author notable in a historic context because of this book? Is this what you are claiming? If not, then what is this author notable for, specifically? 74.237.158.41 (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please use your analytical skills to determine if Bonner is associated with ABC News and The Hindu as well. It seems unlikely. Multiple is stil multiple, even if you are suspicious of one review. Edison (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment:Rajiva responds to the issues and allegations raised on this AfD: http://mindbodypolitic.com/--Persianq (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Any reviews would be for the book and not about the author. The book may be notable but that does not confer notability on the author. Bonner may be notable on his own but again that would not confer notability to Lila Rajiva which is what this AfD is about. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. The post by Rajiva yesterday on her blog directly contradicted some of the assertions made by the originator of this AfD, that's why I posted the link. I thought it was relevant. I think the issues raised here concern both censorship as well as threasholds for notability within the alternative press communities.Persianq (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think the getAbstract award confers notability. For instance, the book that won the award wasn't notable enough to have an article written about it when it came out in 2007. Half of the authors that won this award do not have wikipedia pages, and all of the references to this award in the press are in the German language. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: But there is notability transfered from the award to the author, and some awards are more notable than others. If you look into it, winning the 8 year old getAbstract International Book Award is like winning the Sparknotes.com Book of the Year award, and sparknotes.com was based in Switzerland. I'm unsure if this award is notable enough to be on wikipedia, but if it is it definately isn't notable enough to make an author notable. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This author has already passed two AfD's and those were before the book that received the GetAbstract award. This AfD is unwarranted as it is based on purely subjective definitions of vanity and notability as stated on the article's talk page.Persianq (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Redspruce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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/Lila_Rajiva_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1137988574"