Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next What's In (2nd nomination)

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. JohnCD (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next What's In[edit]

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

Non-notable book. A review and a half in The Hindu (hardly the best resource for book reviews) does not add up to notability. I don't even see much use as a search term. A separate concern is that this article seems to be a vehicle for promotion, which of course is not a reason for deletion. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with a weak keep here. It meets guideline one for notability (books), but barely - I'm only seeing reviews of the book. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have written 4 articles based on the reliable references we have got - Santosh Sharma, Next What's In, Dissolve the box and Intent Leadership. The comments i have got from the editors are as follows

Dissolve the box : Editors are of the view that the references talks about the book and the author. Santosh Sharma: Editors are of the view that the references talks of the book and the idea. Next What's In : Editors are of the view that Next What's In is non notable and The Hindu reference (which was established in 1880 with 4.1 million readers as unreliable) Intent Leadership: Like Dissolve the box article editors are of the view it talks of the book or the author. This does not reflect an objective assessment. Request you'll to reconsider your stand and be fair to arrive at a conclusion. Once we decide the articles to remain in wikipedia i can rework on the article for the encyclopedic content though i have been mentioning the content in the articles is simply quoted from the reliable references and not mine. Thanks "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.39.108 (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know think the other articles are notable enough outside of the book to warrant an article at this point in time, but right now this book seems to have had enough coverage to squeak by WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—There are several reviews of this book in third party sources. It meets WP:NB clause 1, and the GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recognize that the Hindu is not of quite the rigour of some other news sources, but it is one of the two English language news sources for Indian that in practice we rely on. We have to cover the country's notable things using the sources that are available, and in the context, this is.If we didn't accept it for notability , our very weak coverage of India would be very much weaker. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Tokyogirl, Livitup, DGG for your fair decision. I had a very tough time to make the editors understand the facts because they were very negative all troughout. However, i need some more help as i am new to wikipedia . . . 1) Kindly help to improve the article as many aspects which have been covered in the reliabe sources are missing from the article giving an incorrect picture. Kindly have a look at these references also along withthe ones already given to omprove this article. The other references are : a) http://www.financialexpress.com/news/shelflife/828244/2

b) http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/the-winning-way-review/1/16438.html c) http://www.iipmclubs.in/news-and-events/Guest-Lecture-by-Mr.-Santosh-Sharma-(Cultivator---Universal-Intelligence,-Conscious-Advisory-Services-Pvt.Ltd.)-at-IIPM-Hyderabad/ 2) "Dissolve the box" idea has got a "significant coverage" as per the GNG guidelines which clearly states that significant coverage is more than a trivial covereage but need not be the main article. Just have a look at the headline of these artcile (headlines are usually the high point of the article) they all mention the box factor and the body of the article actually explains the heading in different ways like showing the difference with Thinking Outside the box, Benefits in leadership, innovation, implications in life etc. This is certainly not just a trivial mention. Kindly, have a fair look at the spirit of GNG and guide me on this. Thanks Vartmaan (talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 18 March 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.