Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queeristan

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. Consensus is that the article is notable. AfD is not cleanup. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queeristan[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)

Written by a non-notable author. References are interviews of the author himself, including a reference of the book from its own Google book listing! Fails WP:NBOOK. Haueirlan (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Sexuality and gender, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Already provided 2 review of the books from 2 different news paper. So according to WP:NBOOK the subject is meeting criteria. Samir Bishal (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From when did B2C and B2B magazines started publishing book reviews on LGBTQ topics? Anyway, the review from MoneyControl.com is a contributor post, not by staff reporter and the other link is simply unreliable. Sorry, none of the criteria of WP:NBOOK is meeting here. Haueirlan (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Article can pass WP:NBOOK but as it stands it is not suitable for mainspace. Needs more material than just two quotes from book reviews. I was able to find more sources and material including some really great reaction videos and longer reviews. I think drafting is a good compromise here. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 11:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the article can pass the Wikipedia book guidelines and as you say merely needs improvement, then it should never have been brought up for an AfD in the first place. An AfD isn't a forum for how an article can be improved and the notability of an article's subject exists separate from the state the article is in. As such, drafting isn't a good compromise, it's merely another bad route to take in all this. This AfD should be closed as a keep and then if people want to improve the article they can.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Samir Bishal stated, this book easily meets notability guidelines. In addition to the citations shared by Samir Bishal a quick search also turned up articles focused on this book in GQ India, Vogue India, and many more places. --SouthernNights (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2022 (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.