Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India's Coal Story

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The result was Speedy keep - Nomination withdrawn - I withdraw my nomination because as pointed out by Rosguill, RS prejudice against opinion pieces doesn't apply to book reviews, because all reviews are by definition of opinion. makes this book pass WP:NBOOKS. (non-admin closure) KartikeyaS343 (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

India's Coal Story

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:BKCRIT. The tone is promotional. Sources are only book reviews like many other non-notable books. I did not find anything significant so decided to have a discussion on this. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Tone is not a reason for deletion. Has been subject to multiple reviews, thus passing NBOOKS. ∯WBG^converse 09:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The BuisnessLine source[1] is an opinion piece. The Hindu[2] has a book price and details written at the bottom which made me believe it as WP:MILL. The only RS I could find was this one[3]. --KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About The Hindu, that's not unique, see for example [4]. I think it "counts". BuisnessLine says "bookreview", and even if it's an opinion piece (not obvious to me), it's still coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RS prejudice against opinion pieces doesn't apply to book reviews (or any other kind of creative review), because all reviews are by definition of opinion. They still form the bedrock of reliable sources' reporting on such matters, so we consider them valid. The real considerations when evaluating a review are: #1 does the publication have a fully professional editing board and #2 is the publication pay-to-play. If #1 is yes and #2 is no, then it's a usable source. There are also some pay to play publications, like Kirkus Reviews which accept commissions for reviews but do not allow that to affect their coverage, and are still nominally reliable, if not as strong an indication of notability _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I agree tone isn't enough on its own, there doesn't seem to be any legitimate notable reviews or mentions of the book out there. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, What is your definition of legitimate notable reviews? Do you know the sources like The Hindu, Financial Express, The Hindu, Businessline are good and reputed sources per discussions of WP:RSN and WT:INDIA? Did you read WP:NBOOK and minimum requirements to create page? Just pinging Indian editors to ask about legitimacy of reviews here. @Kautilya3, Nizil Shah, Winged Blades of Godric, and Tito Dutta:. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harshil169, I hope you're aware of WP:CANVAS. --KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshil169, Although I find the ongoing wiki-lawyering, subtle act of using guidelines & polices to antagonize you & condescending undertone in comments made by KartikeyaS343 when addressing you to be very annoying, you are indeed publicly canvassing in an ongoing AFD which is not a norm in this community. Regardless I just !voted a Keep.Celestina007 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: I pinged those diverse users who are experienced in Indian sources. Calling of RS as promotional can be answered by them only.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harshil169 oh okay. I think I get what you’re trying to say which is you were merely pinging those who are conversant with the Indian media/press to help clarify in this AFD if or not the sources used in the article are RS? Oh! that’s a plausible rationale.Celestina007 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Celestina007:, would you mind explaining "antagonize you & condescending undertone in comments made by KartikeyaS343" please? Because I find this[5] as not a policy based argument. --KartikeyaS343 (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KartikeyaS343 first, please always indent properly to avoid confusion. Secondly No! literally speaking, I really do not need to explain that comment or anything else to you.Celestina007 (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 I would like to suggest you to comment on content, not on the contributor. --KartikeyaS343 (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KartikeyaS343 right now! you just did it again. Furthermore me telling you to indent properly is not commenting on contributor, but in actuality it is commenting on content. Before dishing out policies & guidelines to other editors & later on playing the victim card, you yourself may need to familiarize yourself with them. For example, take a look at how this AFD you opened has turned out to be a complete misfire. Please don’t ping me anymore as I am done here. Cheers.

Firstly, I did not told you that for asking me to indent properly but because of you making comments on me. Secondly, you perhaps missed where I stated, I did not find anything significant so decided to have a discussion on this. Laslty, I wouldn't even pinged you unless you pinged me in the first place! KartikeyaS343 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm adding these to the argument for WP:N: The Telegraph (Kolkata) and DD News. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, The Hindu and Loksatta. One more: [6]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Lol... Are you kidding me? As per WP:NBOOK, only two reviews in newspapers/magazines are more than enough to have Wikipedia page. The Hindu, Hindu Businessline, Financial Express and Loksatta are reputed news sources which don't have promotional pieces. I have created Wikipedia page of 4 books which are Partition Voices, The Difficulty of Being Good, The Elephant Paradigm and Gandhi and Philosophy: On Theological Anti-politics. I am an experienced editor and I create page only after the minimum notability requirements per our guidelines met. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you WP:OTHER. Do not get offended by an AFD as this is the place where we discuss to reach a consensus. Thank you. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you think I am offended, KartikeyaS343? AfD is not a place where we discuss to reach consensus. We just discuss about deletion, and WP:OTHER is essay which is not applicable here. I have pointed out clearly that similar reviews are used to make pages related to book. This AfD is surely waste of time for community, you can accept your mistake and withdraw the nomination. Such repeated practices can be considered as WP:TE. You should read this essay too. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny that you're saying essays do not apply here yet suggesting me to read other essays! Let me correct you that AFD is indeed the place to reach a consensus on whether to delete an article or keep it. Finally, based on comments from other editors, I tend to accept that this book passes WP:NBOOKS. Mistakes are allowed so don't understand why you have been creating a fuss out of this, Harshil169?--KartikeyaS343 (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep book reviews are a valid form of coverage for books. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’d say to a degree it does indeed satisfy WP:BOOK. Celestina007 (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean Wikipedia:Notability (books)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KartikeyaS343 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There in enough here to pass NBOOKS. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 08:31, 24 January 2020 (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.