Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21 line fusion sonnet

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. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

21 line fusion sonnet

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

Not notable. Blatant self-promotion by the author.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Tesspub (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very full discussion concerning the deletion of the article on the inventor of this poetic form at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sonnet_mondal. All the same arguments apply to his invention. He appears to be the only poet working in this form and all the references are to identical text - obviously press releases. Tesspub (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rather than saying "All the same arguments apply" here as to another AfD, it would be helpful if those you believe apply here are stated here. Each AfD must be considered on its own merits. --candyworm (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has third party references that are not press releases. The form has nothing to do with the author, inventor or the book. The references do not have identical texts.The author may be not notable but the form is notable as evident from journals and magazines and newspapers listed as references in the article.The article has references Google books, Muse India, AsiaWrites, India Today and other magazine, journals(of Burdwan University,California Polytechnic State University ) and press reviews and coverages which makes it notable.Theses references have been used to create many wiki articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poet009 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Books contains an upload of the author's book, nothing more. This can be achieved by going to Google Books and clicking "upload". Muse India has a WP page, which is marked as of questionable notability. These non-notable sources have indeed been used to create many WP articles - by other self-publicists. Tesspub (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such time as there are independent reliable sources that significantly cover this new art form. The bulk of the cited sources are to unreliable blogs and/or are reprints of sonnets or the same few lines about the form repeated again and again. Harley Hudson (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment

The author, whose WP page has already been deleted for non-notability, as has that of his vanity publisher (byline: "for poets who want to publish their poetry"), appears to be the world's only practitioner of this new art form.
- The byline is for cyberwit press not for the publisher of this book.--Diameter (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of the links are independent reviews. Most are toe-curlingly embarrassing: a celebrity is cited as "appreciating" the poetry when, in fact, they have politely written to appreciate the unsolicited gift of a book.
The only effusive support comes from a Canadian poet who appears to have a circular promotion deal with the author: he has written a foreword to her book and her WP page has been created by the same editor (who is undoubtedly the author in question).

Here is the edit history of the Candice James article in question. --candyworm (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The inline references in the article point to the same article reprinted in many places, mostly non-notable blogs and similar.
The correlation between the points in the article and the references appears to be random.

Tesspub (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You cannot re-vote.You have already voted once above nominating the article.

Delete - I think it's worth looking in some detail at the citations listed in the article, as the author's case rests on them:
- ~~The book 21 Lines Fusion Sonnets of 21st Century is self-published~~ - see Google Books

Though Google Books states "Publisher Sonnet Mondal", further investigation reveals the publisher in fact to be Sparrow Publication, a long-standing publishing house in Calcutta: company profile. However, this matter is peripheral to the AfD, which is not about the book. --candyworm (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- E R I Jams Magazine - (not a 1-man show, see here) Review by By Aju Mukhopadhyay
- Indian Book Reviews is a 1-woman blog. Disregard
- Asia Writes Project appears substantial. Review by Shaleen Kumar Singh
- Muse India is a respected journal, but it has merely published a few of Mondal's poems
- The Macedonian journal Stremež appears to have been in publication since 1957 - see Worldcat, but it's unclear what they have included
- Harvest International magazine appears to exist without any web presence. A google search lists only sonnetmondal.synthasite.com as well as three entries for Roger Humes, its international poetry editor (plus Wikipedia and mirors). Suspect.
- Sketchbook is an e-journal of several years' standing, publishing mostly haiku and related forms. They have published a brief definition and a few of Mondal's poems
- A search for Journal of language and Literature studies, Burdwan University, finds nothing at all except Wikipedia + mirrors. Highly suspect.
- Crisis Chronicles Online Library - website impenetrable as far as finding out anything about it. The text at the cited url is practically identical to that at Sketchbook, minus a few of the poems
- Asia Writes (again). The cited unattributed "review" is presumably penned by the author, as it is repeated verbatim at Authors Den and Mondal's own site

So, if we strip out the junk and the opaque from the above, we're left with a couple of reviews of a ~~self-published~~ book. This alone is insufficient to provide notability to a new verse form. --candyworm (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Muse India, Sketchbook which are respected journals running(both have editors to edit works before including in their journal), for years, ERI Jams include an independent review by Aju Mukhopadhyay, AsiaWrites includes an independent review by Dr. Shaleen Kumar Singh and there is a reference for the journal Stremez publishing since 1957, it is likely that the book and form get more coverage soon.Based on this the article can be tagged with references and notability rather than delete.Using excepts from the book doesn't necessarily mean that the author has himself written the review as you mentioned in authorsden. Also there is absolutely no reference in the net or strong proof which says Sparrow publication(which has published the book) from India is a self publishing publisher.A search in the Raja Ram Mohan Roy govt. library in the name of Sparrow publication:- http://rrrlf.nic.in/asp/BibliographicalDetails%20.asp of India shows books from Sparrow publication.Also the Kolkata book fair shows stalls of Sparrow publication. Books from a self publisher is not bought by libraries as such and they do not give stalls in fairs such as Kolkata Book fair.See stall number 88 http://www.kolkatabookfaironline.com/book_stall.php .This is just to prove that the book isn't self published as the publisher(Sparrow Publication) may be a medium size publication house but not a publisher for self publishing. Self publishing publishers are well exposed in the net like Authorhouse, Lulu.com, Publishamerica etc.

Also if notability is in question and at the same time there are some reliable sources then the article must be tagged for "reference" and "notability" rather than being deleted to give some time to find and add more references. --Diameter (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poet009 and Diameter are the same user (in case that's not obvious). --candyworm (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Another proof that the book is not self published is that it is published by a commercial and well known Kolkata based publisher. See World Cat: It archives almost many books published from sparrow publication in the past years. If it was a self publishing company then libraries around the world wouldn't have procured books published by it. See World Cat [1] . So it is baseless to say without proof that the book is self published as there is not a single website or blog in the net which says it to be a self publisher for self publishing poets.Also as my previous comment the Raja RamMohan roy library dhas no self publisher in its list of publisher.--Diameter (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence of the book being self published but yes, the form is not as notable as other inventions of traditional poetry forms. But few reputed journals have recognized it and quite a few media has featured it as in the references.So my vote is towards keep for the time being as I can guess the book has been released recently and it's most likely that more references will eventually come up. --Nidhi. mehta333 (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You agree this form is not notable now, and I think that is what matters. Tesspub (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether self-published or not, or whether legitimately reviewed or not, a single book by a single author does not a new art form make. When (if) this form is picked up by other poets, it may become notable, but as for now, this art form is not notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with WikiDan61. When there are other poets taking up the form, and literary criticism about the form in reliable sources, then there might be a case for notability. A single book from a single poet, without any substantial review of the book much less the form itself is not a strong case for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2011 (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.