Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Courtesan and the Sadhu

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. Tone 17:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Courtesan and the Sadhu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NB. Is a self-published book by a non-notable author and the article content is literally copied (with permission) from the book's publicity website. I didn't find any reviews or independent coverage in reliable sources. The reviews/testimonials in the article are copied from the book's website, and/or the book blurb. Abecedare (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G12 - full text of article is a blatant copyright violation of material published at the book's website. No prejudice against recreation in a non-problematic format, but note that the only reviews I can find are "user-submitted reviews" which appear to have been written by the book's author (including the ones "quoted" on the official website). - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Permission for copying the content from the book's website has been logged with OTRS (see note on talk page), so it is not a copyright violation. Notability, and likely WP:COI, issues still stand. Abecedare (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to Delete - per WP:N. Permission noted (I didn't know that was a thing that could happen), which removes my CSD#G12 concerns, but leaves the fact that my good faith searches are unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources for this book. The Google hits are either directory listings or anonymous user-submitted reviews. Without such sources it is unable to pass WP:N and should be deleted as non-notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in searches to show that this passes notability for books. -SpacemanSpiff 17:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published works are seldom notable. Lack of independent sources indicate this is not one of the exceptions. Edward321 (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2009 (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.