Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Valley of Kashmir

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Valley of Kashmir[edit]

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

Fails WP:BKCRIT Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It passes WP:BKCRIT, given these and some other source: 1. (Page 46), 2. (Page 2), 3, 4, 5. (Page 38), 6, 7. (Page 20), 8. (Page 275). --SMS ^Talk 21:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your kidding right? I just looked at the first four sources, all they do is mention the name of the book. There is no indepth coverage in any of them, and this one is not RS[1] Darkness Shines (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 160+ hits on GScholar[2] confirm that this 100+ year old book was deemed to be a significant book about its topic. It doesn't help the encyclopedia to remove verifiable information like this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That search will give hits for "walter" & "lawrence" Sir Walter Lawrence is notable, this book however is not. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Something doesn't become notable automatically, because it exists. The book has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Notability is not inherited, the author is notable but the book itself is not so notable and it's more than likely to fail WP:BKCRIT. No book is notable merely because a notable person was associated with it. If the Book or its content itself did not receive notice, then the BOOK is not notable. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 11:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment'- This source [3] says it‘s the best book on Kashmir, this one says it is the famous book. It‘s provided as a reference see. User:Darkness Shines and User:Mrt3366 think that with their actions (reverting my edits, tagging my articles for deletion and harassing me at my talk page) I‘m going to quit. No I‘m not going anywhere and I‘ll continue help wikipedia with my contributions. Thank you. MehrajMir '^(Talk) 14:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may have escaped your notice but your first source is junk, it is one persons opinion and is a story of "what I did on my summer holidays". Your second source does not look much better at all. But more importantly it only gives a single mention. Where are the sources with indepth reviews or discussions on the book? There are none, which is why it fails. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comments of Arxiloxos, Mehrajmir13 and SMS - the sources listed are enough to verify that this book passes WP:GNG in my opinion. Mar4d (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. So far as I can judge, a large proportion of references to Sir Walter Lawrence in subsequent literature are actually quotations from or references to this book - so I'm finding it very difficult to see how the book isn't notable while the author is. Having said that, I can see some reason for having the book covered in a section of the author's article rather than separately. PWilkinson (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mar4d.BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - famous books are notable, and once notable, always thus. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2012 (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.