Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juino

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. Lourdes has posted sources to prove that subjects meets WP:NBOOK, there seems to be agreement that is enough. Clear consensus here. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juino[edit]

[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)

just one wordpress references and article has not any reliable sources. Wikipedia is not right place for advertisement. AD ^Talk 18:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. AD ^Talk 18:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [1] might be reasonable coverage in Nepali, but Google Translate is not good enough to assess this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside Google Translate is not good enough to assess anything. Trillfendi (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Does not seem to meet WP:NB MarkH21 (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revise to Keep MarkH21 (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBOOK, the book "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published work".^[2][3][4] Typical Western-bias shouldn't stop non-English books from being covered. Lourdes 04:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the unfounded accusations of "Western-bias", the previous judgment was based on the lone existing source given in the article and our own searches which clearly did not find these sources. I'll revise to Keep on this evidence of meeting WP:NB. MarkH21 (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mark; it's not targeted at any editor. Systemic bias is quite common when English-speaking editors are not able to translate foreign language sources and therefore ignore those in favour of English sources (which quite often do not exist for such regions). Thanks, Lourdes 06:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per refs noted above. Szzuk (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2019 (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.