Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not Just Fate

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, without prejudice to recreation if further reliable sources are forthcoming. Claims were made that offline sources exist, but these have not been identified either here or in the articles. I will undelete on request if sources are available. Spinning Spark 16:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Just Fate[edit]

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

I'm nominating two entries, neither of which have any or enough reliable sources to show that these books pass WP:NBOOK. Not Just Fate has one sole link whereas Suicide at Seventeen has none. The original sources on the articles were not usable as reliable sources, being linked primarily to unreliable sites such as personal blogs, mass review sites such as FlipKart, YouTube pages of the author, and sites where people can submit their own articles to be published. A search did not bring up anything that showed that either book passes notability guidelines. Since these books were published in India, I'm open to the idea that there might be foreign language sources but given the limited amount of chatter for the authors I'm somewhat doubting it. PROD removed by article creator. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons listed above:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Suicide at Seventeen" has a write up in DNA. It's an article devoted about the book and author by a signed journalist (A. Singh), more than trivial coverage. Cite:

Singh, A. (2011, Oct 18). "Suicide fight puts boy on write track." DNA: Daily News & Analysis, ProQuest document ID: 898698946 (I have access to the text of the article).

It's more sympathetic to the author than the Hindustan Times article. It might be possible to merge these two books into a single author article, but would need a longer article than the Hindustan Times for a second source. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, neither of the books are by the same author. They're by the same editor and published by the same company, but the books are by two different authors and we'd need more than two links to really prove that the author passes notability guidelines even if they were by the same person or if we were to go by the publishing company.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why this has been proposed for deletion, it doesnt fall in any of the below criteria in order to get removed: Neither a duplicate entry, No copyright violation, Non-notability. Just because this book is an Indian book doesnt make it short of notability. In India, a lot of magazines which contain the reviews do not have online presence and hence those references cannot be placed here. This book is present on almost every online store which delivers in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aplihs (talk • contribs)

Sources don't need to be online. If you know the name of an article published in a magazine or newspaper along with title and author and date, it would be considered a source. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I do want to warn that not all magazines are considered to be reliable sources and that a lot depends on whether or not the material submitted to the magazine was provided entirely by the publisher or author, such as a press release. A well-established and well thought of magazine would help, but if the magazine is one of the home-grown ones that never get widely distributed and are the equivalent of an online book blog, odds are it won't be seen as reliable enough to give notability. You'd also need to have multiple sources, so one or two won't cut it. I'm not trying to be harsh and I'm well aware that the literary coverage of Indian authors and books is more limited than in some of the other countries out there (such as the USA, where every publisher is mugging for the camera), but the books are still held to the same standards as every other book entry on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my initial prod, where I wrote "Promo article about non-notable book that doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. According to WorldCat, it is not available in any libraries. Article's sole source is a video about the book's release in the context of a book fair, i.e., no reviews of the book are currently referenced." Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 19:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do you think the prominent News paper of India would review something which is non-notable? No Way! Hindustan Times receives thousands of Books for review and it covers only 3 per week. The notability is not in question at all. I had placed an interview link of a prominent website which talked about the good sales of the book but that link was removed!!! The Best Sellers Chart results are announced at a specific period of an year, which is not now. Other Book reviews were added due to comments from DoriSmith which are also removed. What I mean to say is that this book has made its presence in the market in India. No doubt its notable. As far as DoriSmith's argument is concerned, if you look at the article in its present state, there is nothing promotional. So keep. Abhishekjindal12 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abhishekjindal - can you review Wikipedia:Notability (books) - the criteria when speaking of "notable". You are correct, the Hindu Times is "reliable" coverage. Although it is so brief, a few sentences, it's arguably not "significant" coverage. But we also need two sources. Is there is a second? I looked in the article and just see the one source. You can post sources here too. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just a side note, but if anyone is interested in userfying a copy of the articles up for deletion and working on them until they pass WP:NBOOK, I have no problems with that.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to find some coverage of the book in this interview with the author, specifically its coverage at the World Book Fair, how it sold ~1000 copies, some details on the editing and publishing process specific to this title, its success, etc. The tech-related website say that it aims to tell its readers what is really happening in the tech industry in India. The real and unvarnished story. No boring technology articles on our website. No public relations gloss handed out at press conferences. No soft profiles of IT titans in India. It seems to have something like an editorial review board; it is certainly not exuding reliability, but I think it is good enough. However, I am confused about the possibility of merging these two books into a single author article-- aren't the authors different? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are separate. It was just a bit of confusion since I'd grouped two books by the same publisher and editor together in one AfD. As far as the link goes, I'm not really certain that TechGoss would be considered a reliable source for notability, especially considering this: "Hopefully, you will use this as a forum to tell others about the clever, interesting and gossipy things happening in the tech industry. Please be assured that your contributions will be totally anonymous if you chose so. Your identity will be known only to the Editor at Techgoss." When you consider that the "contact us" page has instructions for people submitting articles, I'm kind of leaning towards it being non usable as a RS because it's the type of site where anyone can contribute. We can run it through the RS Noticeboard but I don't think it'd pass muster.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per Tokyogirl79's comments above. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:16, 24 October 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.