Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Burmese
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 delete. Maxim (☎) 21:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First Burmese[edit]
- First Burmese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
OK I know information about Burma isn't always easy to come by and ghits aren't the be all and end all, but I can't imagine that a notable book would return exactly 6ghits. Doesn't appear to be any record of this book, even the 2003 reprint. The article itself appears to be a list of the people mentioned in the book, some of whom appear to be notable but this doesn't add anything to it. Without information on which to expand this article, there's no evidence it passes WP:BK. Thoughts? Am happy to reconsider if someone can find information. TravellingCari 17:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 17:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 16:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. The article appears to be incorrectly named, First Myanmars by this author is available to buy here, and also cited as a source in these two articles. However, I cannot find any coverage in reliable sources of the book by either name, so fails WP:BK, although a book first published in Burma/Myanmar in 1968 could arguably be a non-contemporary book, given that it is not likely to have any widespread on-line presence. ascidian | talk-to-me 21:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to ascidian you may have a point re: the original pub date, but I think the 2003 reprint should have generated some notice if it were notable. TravellingCari 03:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there is a complete lack of coverage for either edition. The fact that it was reprinted 35 years after it was originally published is just making me think that maybe we're missing something here? (hence the "weak" delete). ascidian | talk-to-me 15:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed re: missing something, I don't know if it's a language issue or a no information out of Burma issue unfortunately. TravellingCari 16:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there is a complete lack of coverage for either edition. The fact that it was reprinted 35 years after it was originally published is just making me think that maybe we're missing something here? (hence the "weak" delete). ascidian | talk-to-me 15:56, 25 August 2008 (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.