Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solstice at Panipat, 14 January 1761

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Solstice at Panipat, 14 January 1761

Solstice at Panipat, 14 January 1761 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

This article was created in violation of a topic ban. The subject matter is a non-notable, recently published book of revisionist history. Aside from the usual book reviews and PR blurb etc there is nothing to indicate why this book, out of the many thousands published each year, has an encyclopedic significance. It is not written by an academic but rather by one of the many amateur historians of India and is thus unlikely to attract attention from academia in the future. Sitush (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete This book on a Indian history topic is written by a retired Indian navy surgeon, the work of an avocation rather than a vocation, and published by a little known press. Nothing wrong with that, as long as the book is reviewed by scholarly or notable periodicals. But, although the author in an interview bemoans the lack of English language books on its topic, the Third Battle of Panipat, there is no English language review of the book, not even in a newspaper, let alone in a periodical. The only review (we are told by Milind01 (talk · contribs) who has lately been editing the page) is in a Marathi language newspaper. I don't understand Marathi, but the review seems like a fairly short one. In other words, the book is not notable enough to make the cut. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 15:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete -- Not every book is notable enought to require an encyclopaedia entry. I would expect a book to be by a reputable academic historian before we allowed an article on it. WE might possibly add a further reading note about the book to Third Battle of Panipat. I suspect that this is a historcial subject, where there are various POVs, according to the author's political viewpoint. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Why not redirect? After all they are cheap. This article can be redirected to Battle of Panipat (1761). (I am gonna do that on almost all AfDs now.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid a redirect is not a solution. A redirect accords notability to non-notable book not only by making it a part of Wikipedia, but also by boosting its rank in Google searches. Wikipedia cannot be complicit in such a commercial linkage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wish every admin thought this way. If interested your comment at Wikipedia_talk:INCINE#Redirected would be good. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Retain : This is a comment on notability and an argument to retain the entry. The book has an ISBN, has been reviewed by a neutral reviewer in a reputed newspaper and is listed in the Library of Congress USA . The book has 26 pages of References for the events noted in the book and a bibliography that runs to nearly sixty two books. It is therefore a serious work of research on this battle and likely to be referred by academia in the present and the future. In addtion the book has a Index, a glossary, a timeline, genealogies and an introduction to the over 100 characters in the book. It has been included in the long list of the only book award for books published in India - the Economist Crossword Book Award. The second revised edition of the book has been published within one year of the first edition. Deletion is the last resort [[1]] and this does not quite fall in that category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milind01 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 27 July 2012‎

The long list has over a hundred non-fictional English-language books published in India during the last year! Do the remaining (over a 99) books have Wikipedia pages? That newspaper is a Marathi-language newspaper I've already referred to above. Is there a review of the book in an English-language newspaper or periodical? Also, as an editor, who, interestingly, appeared on Wikipedia a week ago, around the time the creator of the article, Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs) was blocked, you are not very credible yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

PS I have now removed the statement in the article about the book making the "longlist," because, it turns out, the "longlist," in this case, is simply a list of books that were entered for the prize by the publisher or author. These books have not been read by the judges. See my remarks below.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Milind01, but you are basically reciting stats concerning the format of the book, as once existed in the article. I see no relevance and note in response to your "It is therefore a serious work of research on this battle and likely to be referred by academia in the present and the future." that (a) use in the present is unconfirmed and (b) use in the future falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment : The commentator above has raised concerns earlier about this page that are being addressed in subsequent edits/remarks. However as per wiki guidelines (above) commenting on other users (rather than the topic under discussion) can be considered disruptive editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DE. A new user takes time to develop credibility, but that is not a ground to contest his edits. A 'long list' of 100 books in an year in a nation of 1.2 billion is not unacceptable. Over 18000 books in English were published in India in one year (in 2004) . Marathi is an important language in India and the subject of the book is relevant to Marathi media more than any other, which is one reason why a review for an English book may have appeared in a Marathi paper. Each of the other 99 books that may or may not be eligible to be part of wiki have to be considered on a case by case basis if they appear over here.Milind01

Before you wikilawyer your way through adding manifestly false content to Wikipedia, let me suggest that the longlist, in this particular instance, is simply the list of entries received from publishers or authors. It does not involve any pruning or recognition as a result of critical attention of judges. Read the second paragraph here. A total of 329 entries were received. The longlist consists of 137 fictional entries, 104 non-fictional entries, 29 books of translation, and 59 childrens books. Well what is: 137 + 104 + 29 + 59? You guessed it. All it means is that this book was entered for the prize either by its publisher or its author. What is the big deal in that?! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This point may please be withdrawn from the 'Retain' remarks.Milind01 —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete No evidence of notability. The book doesn't seem to have been reviewed by any source (none of the references are reviews), let alone a reliable one. If and when the book becomes notable, an article can easily be created. --regentspark (comment) 12:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

*Keep (see bellow), the Marathi review is reliable (published by Maharashtra Times). I found another substantial review by The Indian Express. The DNA interview is also closely related to the book. I think the subject meets WP:GNG and I can't see any benefits in deleting this kind of verifiable information on historical research in India. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Neither of those are reviews. There is a huge difference between a review of the quality of material in a book by a regular reviewer or a scholar and a fluff piece that merely interviews the author (this, for example is what a review looks like). And, there is no evidence (in the form of reliable sources) that this book has "verifiable information on historical research". --regentspark (comment) 19:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  OK, this is a valid argument, but it is undisputable that the author and his book have been noted by multiple reliable media, the Times of India labelled Mr Kulkarni as a 'critically acclaimed author'. I can't believe that he is nobody in his country and I presented the evidence, articles by important Indian media (of course, I don't want to compare with Charles Dickens). Perhaps the article could be redirected and refocused on the author. No hard feelings on this, at the AfD, I like to represent 'the other side of the opinion spectrum'. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Still delete (as I voted above) -- the fact that a book has been reviewed does not make it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BKCRIT, No. 1, Peter. You are not right. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Still speedy delete The book is not notable, not just ordinarily non-notable, but irredeemably non-notable. More than a year after publication it has not been reviewed in any English-language newspaper in India, let alone elsewhere or in an internationally-recognized journal. The characterization of the soft-ball interview with the author in the Indian Express (now a right-wing newspaper in India sympathetic to Hindu nationalistic revisionist views) as a "review," by user:Vejvandick, is blatantly false. No critical judgments are made, no analysis carried out. (The "longlist," as I've already indicated is simply a list of all books entered for the prize by the publisher or author. No big deal in that.) A redirect, too, as I've already indicated, is simply not in the cards. A redirect (to say Third Battle of Panipat), nonetheless, significantly improves a book's Google search rank. Wikipedia cannot be complicit in such commercial handouts to authors. Finally, to give you the scale of the injustice being contemplated by deeming this book worthy of a page, consider this: In the FA India, none of the major histories of India used as references, (see India#References), written by some of the world's best-known historians, has a Wikipedia page of its own. I'll be darned if we will be according that honor to an unknown book written by an unknown amateur historian in a page created by an known tendentious editor in contempt of his very well known topic ban. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, gyus, no need to !vote twice. It is not allowed, as far as I know, and could be confusing for the closing admin/editor. Personal disagreements and political POVs of our editors should not be projected to the AfD discussions. The Indian Express may be nationalistic or revisionist or whatever, but it still represents a part of public opinion in India. The fact that the page was created by a 'known tendentious editor' has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion. User:Vejvandick??? I hope it is an unintentional mistake. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, it was an inadvertent spelling mistake. Please accept my apologies. My eyesight is no longer what it used to be. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Irredeemably non-notable?? How do you know that? Are you Nostradamus? :) ... and why the aggressive attitude? I comment at hundreds (maybe thousands) of unrelated AfDs and I have no personal interest here. All I want is to lay all cards on the table and judge subjects carefully. Thanks for respecting that. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You might be commenting at other AfDs, but your comments here are misleading. Getting a mention in an Indian newspaper, especially a soft-ball social news interview, is not that notable or for that matter reliable both with respect to the author and the book. With the explosion in newspapers in India, especially on the web, this is even more true. There is also an echo chamber effect. A news item published on one site is then repeated (with minimal paraphrasing) on other sites, the work of website administrators, not journalists. In fact, there have been moves afoot on WT:INDIA to not automatically regard Indian newspapers as reliable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I know a bit about how today's online news and media work and I share your concerns (especially the echo chamber effect of the so-called independent media). However, the above (and below) mentioned sources are not repeated and have different authors: दिवाकर देशपांडे (Diwakar Deshpande according to G-translator), Kartikeya Ramanathan and Bhagyashree Kulthe. I would agree that this is a borderline case and I wouldn't object deletion, although WP:GNG would allow the existence of the article, at least in my opinion. Fowler, please, do not be offended, but I have the strange feeling that you don't like the content of the book or the opinions of its author. I'm not familiar with the circumstances and the surroundings of this case or with the historical context, but I think our personal dislikes should stay away from AfD. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The book has a forward by Ninad Bedekar, another amateur historian (and tour guide, who apparently took the resemblance of his name to the fabled tour guide too seriously)—"executive president" of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a Hindu nationalist organization—whose Wikipedia page too is the handiwork of Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs). Whether or not you are right about my feelings, still, there are many such books published in India every year. Consider in contrast, Burton Stein's History of India. This book, widely used worldwide, doesn't have a Wikipedia page; however, look at its Google books links. Not all links relate to his History of India, but many do, over a thousand in my estimation. We have a situation here where a tendentious editor keeps creating obscure pages of ideological subjects (sometimes in contempt of his topic ban), an editor who has been around, here on Wikipedia, long enough to know how to source on paper (and sometimes disingenuously). I believe in such a situation, we shouldn't accord the page the benefit of the doubt that we would normally do to other new creations; such pages, I believe, should be governed by a Wiki Precautionary principle. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if a book meets the notability criteria, it can be included here, no matter how many books is published in India every year or how many notable books is covered by Wikipedia. The Stein's History of India is certainly more notable than this book and deserves an article here, but the comparison cannot serve as an argument for deletion of another article. I don't know who is User:Yogesh Khandke, but I've noticed that some editors involved in previous (largely negative) interactions with Yogesh Khandke have somehow found this AfD and !voted to delete the page. It is strange, but I don't care too much. I see sources and I ponder if it is possible to compile an article. I'm trying to save any possibly useful and verifiable information. Nothing more and nothing less. I've proposed a solution below. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, then let us agree to disagree. In my reckoning, 1) the book has one Marathi language review (the content of which no one knows anything about), 2) there are two English-language interviews with the author (in the Indian Express and DNA) that are sufficiently similar to each other, to not, in my view, qualify as independent sources, and 3) since the author says in one interview, "I have published it through my own company Mula Mutha Publishers," the book is self-published. That level of coverage is not notable either for the book or its author. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge to Uday Kulkarni or Uday S Kulkarni per the discussion above. The author is the main subject of reliable sources found so far:

• [2] (in Marathi, Maharashtra Times)
• [3] (The Indian Express)
• [4] (Daily News and Analysis)

The sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

They are? Can you tell us what the Maharashtra Times review says? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't read Marathi but it is clear from G-translator that the article discusses the book. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete One review isn't sufficient to meet our criteria at either WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (books) (and of course we haven't yet been told what it says. A comment by the author doesn't go to the notability of the book. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep
• 1)See General notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. The article satisfies all the criteria viz. (a) Significant coverage (b) Reliable (c)Sources and they are "not required to be in English." (d) it satisfies the "presumed" clause as the article doesn't violate "what Wikipedia is not" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The book has been described as acclaimed and the author "critically aclaimed" by national Indian newspapers. The book has been reviewed in a Marathi newspaper, Marathi has over 70 million speakers, more than most other languages in the world
• 2)The book has been discussed one after it has been released, which makes itself notable, its notability is not temporary.
• 3)There is no need for a English language review to establish notablity, per the notablity criteria as stated above.
• 4)Notablity is not related to academic acceptance, but general notability.
• 5)The book was used on Wikipedia as a source, here
• 6)"Sitush" describes the book as "The subject matter is a non-notable, recently published book of revisionist history." how does he know that the book is "revisionist history", has he read the book? What gives him the right to make this wild speculation, "Revisionist history": The reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. How does the topic ban work against the article? What kind of madness is this? His rant against the book should be ignored.Looks like he wants to settle some personal scores with the editor of the article.
• 7) Notability is established by numerous references to the book in the media.--sarvajna (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ratnakar.kulkarni, the entire article section to which you link is unsourced. Even if this book had been used as a source, that would not confer any great status upon it. We should use reliable sources, sure, but this does not mean that because we use them they are be reliable, or indeed notable. The rest of your points appear already to have been dealt with by others above, although you really are scraping the barrel of logic when you say "The book has been reviewed in a Marathi newspaper, Marathi has over 70 million speakers, more than most other languages in the world" - what has one newspaper got to do with the number of Marathi speakers? Do they all read it? And if 56 million people in the UK speak English (the population, approximately) then your 70 million figure is going to be truly dwarfed by the English-speaking populace. I just do not see the relevance. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sitush you should get your math right, you say that 56 million is greater than 70. I agree that English speaking populace is far greater than Marathi speaking populace if that is what you meant my point was that Marathi is not a language spoken by some small set of people in some remote corner of the world, so a review of the book in a Marathi news paper is noteworthy thing.--sarvajna (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

First, it is "sources", plural. Secondly, it depends on the newspaper (and the reviewer). A review in just any American newspaper wouldn't automatically be enough. What can you tell us about the newspaper? About the review? And you still need more than one review. And you need to show the review was independent. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There were "sources" present check the history, Maharashtra Times is part of Times of India group that publishes the world's most widely circulated English language newspaper, not sure what makes you feel that the review was independent? --sarvajna (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. First let's take the references: ref [2] suggests that the author wrote the book in passing, while quoting him on an unrelated matter, [3] is clearly not a book review or anything that we'd consider significant coverage but more importantly, it doesn't support the statement of "book on Indian history", rather, it supports the author's claim that it's a book "based on history", there's a big difference between the two. There might be a case to treat this as fiction or history, but when we can not even get a reliable source to discuss the topical nature of the book, it clearly fails the significant coverage test. And more importantly, for an English language book, we would and should expect English language reviews. Just like for Marathi or Tamil books we expect their reviews in Marathi or Tamil. The fact that there is extensive coverage and reviews of English language books in The Hindu, ToI, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, etc, should be indication enough on the reception is for such books. Anyone is welcome to go to their local library and check the book reviews section from The Hindu (every Tuesdays) that includes at least five English language new-arrivals a week, and three to five vernacular new-arrivals. —SpacemanSpiff 03:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

you are right about the ref [2], but it can be used to show that the author and book got mention, ref [3] is not a review its an interview of the author that gives important details of the book. Please note Wikipedia:Notability states that the sources are not required to be in English.--sarvajna (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said that a source is required in English, so please don't misquote me. I have clearly stated that I find it extremely suspect that the only book review for an English language book that we can collectively find, is in Marathi, which directly speaks to the relevance and notability of the book. —SpacemanSpiff 09:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say that Maharashtra Times is a good source --sarvajna (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Additional Comments

See translation of Maharshtra Times review available on my talk page:

• The review rubbishes Spaceman's imagination regarding whether the book is history or fiction, it is a work of history based on primary historical sources like bakhars
• It refers to Ninad Bedekar as a history scholar whom Fowler in his characteristic Indo-phobic style calls all kinds of names.
• It also proves false Fowler's and Sitush's speculation that the "book is revisionist history" they are mis-leading editors here by wanton lies and for attacking living persons.
• We haven't been able to find an English language review yet, but the Marathi language review is considered good by Wikipedia see wp:GNG, wp:Notability and most important
• the book passes Wikipedia:BKCRIT#Criteria "the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." We have had a review, an interview, and many reports, all in perfectly reliable, non-trivial sources.
• Spaceman I change my mind about the Mandva reference, it shows that the author and the book are notable enough to be mentioned in an article written one year after the release of the book.
• Spaceman you are simply wasting time and confusing readers, what do you mean by "here might be a case to treat this as fiction or history, but when we can not even get a reliable source to discuss the topical nature of the book, it clearly fails the significant coverage test"? The article had eight references before they were culled I don't know why?
• It also passes Wikipedia:BKCRIT#Threshold_standards --sarvajna (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That's nothing more than bovine excrement. A non-credible reference can not be used to classify something as history, period. If you can not identify reliability or credibility of sources required for an encyclopaedia, you shouldn't be trying to "rubbish" comments here. Just like you can find many sources that attest to Devaneya Pavanar's works as linguistic theory, but that doesn't make it linguistic scholarship, it's still fringe. Of course, that doesn't stop anything from being on Wikipedia, we are apparently more accepting of ridiculousness than our policies allow. A medical doctor is not a historian, neither is a mechanical engineer, unless they are accepted as such by peer reviewed publications. Pseudohistory is quite different from history. —SpacemanSpiff 03:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: The book has received fair coverage in media. Three independent newspapers writing about it, reviewing it or interviewing author about the book, is sufficient for WP:GNG. Every book does not have to be Devdas or A Brief History of Time. And as to some editor's views that the book is rubbish and non-credible and what not, let third-party sources call it so. You don't get to decide that. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Third party sources? Where are they? I'm afraid a self-published English-language book ostensibly about an Indian history topic by a retired Indian navy surgeon who is still in private medical practice, a work of avocation, with no review yet in any of the hundreds of English-language newspapers in India, and with a forward written by Ninad Bedekar, the "Executive President" of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad a notorious Hindu nationalist organization—who two years ago succeeded with the Maratha-Hindu-nationalist organization, Shiv Sena to have Jame Laine's academic monograph, Shivaji: Hindu king in Islamic India (Oxford University Press) banned in their state, until India's Supreme court lifted the ban, but not before Shiv Sena goons had ransacked the collections of a major research institute in Poona where Laine had worked—seems like POV-pushing of obscure ideological material. With discretionary sanctions now in place in India-related topics, I hope such relentless POV-pushing will not be allowed to stand. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Did any of the newspapers which wrote about the book share these views of yours? Of how the author and the foreword writer are not notable? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Newspapers? In the plural? There is only one that discusses the book, but it is written in Marathi. The two English language newspapers mentioned do not constitute independent secondary sources. They have softball interviews with the author, lacking any critical commentary, in which very brief questions are asked and the author then drones on about his grandfather's love of history and the like. That is not a secondary source. It is a primary source, whose author, moreover—the interviewee—is also the author of the book. Besides, the interviews are sufficiently alike to not constitute independent sources. You tell me, where is the "sufficient critical commentary" (required per WP:Notability (books)) in this interview? The interviewer is very careful to say nothing himself (or herself)! Pretty remarkable really. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Same with the second English-language interview, which is really the same interview, but not written in a Q&A format. Can you find a single sentence there of critical commentary (by the interviewer or newspaper)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

sarvajna has already pointed out that non-English medium of a review is not a valid reason to not consider it. Do you want every editor to point it out to you or will you understand it this time? The subject is related to Maharashtra and hence the review in Marathi language is good enough. Had it been in any Scandinavian language one must consider it. Three newspapers, independent in the sense that they are owned by different companies, decided to write about the book. What they wrote, if it lacked what usual American or Japanese reviewers write, does not matter. The fact that three newspapers decided to print makes it pass WP:GNG. Every book doesn't have to be a Man Booker nominee. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, in the case of a book, WP:Notability (books) takes precedence over General Notability Guidelines. It requires "sufficient critical commentary," in the source. Where is the critical commentary in the two English-language interviews? Find me one sentence of critical commentary in either source. That means there is only one source the Marathi language article about which we know nothing about. In the absence of a reliable translation, there is not much we can do with that, and in any case, it wouldn't satisfy "multiple non-trivial published works" required. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm! In few AfDs well-established editors have argued that if GNG passes, other specific notability related guidelines need not pass. Passing GNG means that there are people outside Wiki who care to write about the subject as readers care to read. I sort of agree(/d) with them. I know i can't give examples of other stuff as a reason to keep this article. But i always try to apply uniformity throughout and if something is going in hell or heaven, others also should follow. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in this case, I don't see the article satisfying GNG. We need significant , reliable and independent coverage. Let's take a look at the sources. The TOI source merely mentions that Kulkarni is the author of the book. That is definitely not significant. The DNA source is an interview with the author and quotes his own words. Definitely not independent. The only possible candidate is the Maharashtra Times one and that's in Marathi. Even if it were significant, reliable and independent, the existence of one source doesn't satisfy the "Multiple sources are generally expected" criterion. Perhaps a mention of the book can be included in the author's own page but nothing beyond that. --regentspark (comment) 15:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is DNA's interview not independent? It is not self-publicity, it is not self-published, it is not advertisement, it is not on subject's website, it is not autobiography, it is not press-release. Are you saying it is a press-release for being released from a newspaper press? Same is the case with Indian Express' article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Multiple independent reliable sources disagree with "bovine excrement" coming from Spaceman, so the admin would have to decide whom to trust more "published sources" or SpacemanSpiff. The book is notable as defined by Wikipedia standards, Ninad Bedekar's opinion as a historian as remarked by Fowler seems to have weight when it came to deceiding whether a book could be published or not, which makes him notable enough, and so his foreword does add to the weight of "Solstice..." Is it a Wikipedia policy that those associated with VHP would be blanked out from it? Fowler again trips on facts as usual, he seems to have a weakness for fairy tales which I hope is soon noticed by those in charge, as, an encyclopaedia is about facts, the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute was vandalised by the Sambhaji Brigade an anti-Hindu outfit completely distinct and with a political philosophy opposite to the Shiv Sena.[5] Fowler is a menance to building an encyclopaedia, the sooner it is noticed the better. --sarvajna (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You might want to consider striking out some of your comments above. Just a thought. --regentspark (comment) 21:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete and stop wasting community time When a topic has dedicated cheerleaders as we see in this discussion, I believe we're entitled to assume that whatever sources are out there have been lovingly added to the article. Except for the one in a script which my ignorance prevents me from naming, which source I of course can't read, there's nothing, and no matter what the last one says it wouldn't be enough. EEng (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete As EEng has eloquently explained, there are plenty of supporters for the topic of the article, yet evidence for WP:N remains elusive. The article fails WP:NBOOK—no multiple independent non-trivial reviews on the subject, no literary award, no significant contribution, not used for education, and non-notable author. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete because the book fails WP:NBOOK due to lack of in-depth reviews or other significant coverage in reliable independent sources (plural). There have been poor arguments advanced on both sides of this debate. Despite my respect for Sitush and that editor's outstanding work to maintain high standards on articles pertaining to India, there is no requirement that a book be written by an "academic" rather than an "amateur historian" in order to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Books widely considered garbage by serious scholars can be notable and the subject of Wikipedia articles. Chariots of the Gods? is just the first of many examples that come to mind. Mein Kampf also comes to mind, painfully. The test is whether the book has received significant coverage in several reliable, independent sources. We have only one review of this book in another language and don't really know what it says. I readily accept coverage in reliable sources in other languages as part of establishing notability, but a single vague source that no one here can yet characterize accurately is insufficient. We have passing mentions in English that don't provide significant coverage and must therefore be disregarded. I endorse the conclusions of EEng and Johnuniq. Let's end this and delete this article. Editors interested in improving our coverage of Indian topics should write articles about those other notable books about India mentioned above that don't yet have Wikipedia articles and should. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, Cullen. Based on my experience, I was trying to pre-empt what I thought would be an almost-inevitable argument for retention. And, indeed, someone did raise the point of academic acceptance. - Sitush (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

@Cullen, sarvajna has provided the translation of that single-vague-source on his talk page. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

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.