Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:56, 19 June 2024

Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Book from conspiracy theorists that failed to attract any coverage or reviews. At best it has only received little coverage over disinformation it spread. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, India, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage in the Kansas City Star and The Historian, as well as from other authors, makes it notable. Critical coverage is still coverage. Astaire (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage books that are written specifically for getting attention should attract coverage from more than just 2 twenty years old sources. If this book was published today it would be best fact checked on a fact checking website and we wont count it as coverage towards notability. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It passes NBOOK and is therefore notable. The reviews seem to adequately address the book's fringe claims. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: How does it pass WP:NBOOK? Ignore the misleading claim above that there is coverage from "Kansas City Star" because it simply not verifiable. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best we have only 1 review that meets WP:V. I agree that special care should be taken over a fringe subject but even without that this book easily fails all points of WP:NBOOK. Azuredivay (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, one review doesn't prove notability. Artem.G (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 :*{{ping|PARAKANYAA}} How does it pass [[WP:NBOOK]]? Ignore the misleading claim above that there is coverage from "Kansas City Star" because it simply not verifiable. [[User:ArvindPalaskar|ArvindPalaskar]] ([[User talk:ArvindPalaskar|talk]]) 09:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' At best we have only 1 review that meets [[WP:V]]. I agree that special care should be taken over a fringe subject but even without that this book easily fails all points of [[WP:NBOOK]]. [[User:Azuredivay|Azuredivay]] ([[User talk:Azuredivay|talk]]) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
+*'''delete''', one review doesn't prove notability. [[User:Artem.G|Artem.G]] ([[User talk:Artem.G|talk]]) 11:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)