Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:59, 19 June 2024

Gandhi Under Cross Examination

[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. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep. I can find two independent sources covering this book: this Vice article and this review in the journal Encounter. (I can find no evidence that the article "New Book Shreds Fabrication of Indian Civil Rights Icon" cited in the book's page actually exists.) Coverage from two independent sources is enough per WP:NBOOK. The journal Encounter does not appear to be very notable, lacking a Wikipedia article. The review's author Rufus Burrow, Jr. seems to be semi-notable but also lacks a Wikipedia article. Astaire (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Astaire. And per the cover image, Hillary v. Gandhi, Obama, et al. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two sources have been provided above but Vice is an unreliable source for notability. Garbage books that are written specifically for getting attention should attract coverage from just 2 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) 03:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vice is "no consensus", not unreliable for the purposes of notability, and IMO this article doesn't fall into Vice's typical pitfalls so it is probably fine. Encounter looks like a decent journal. My issue is the Vice article is an interview - though it does have commentary on the book outside of that, so... eh? I was able to verify the "Book Shreds Fabrication of Indian Civil Rights Icon" source exists and what it said but it is a press release and doesn't count for notability.

Even fringe books get reviewed, so that's not a guarantee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no consensus over the reliability of Vice, it cannot be used for establishing notability at all. The source has to be undoubtedly reliable. I agree that the Vice source is insufficient even if the website was a reliable source. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no coverage is secondary reliable sources, vice and semi-reliable journal don't prove the book's notability. Artem.G (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 *:Even fringe books get reviewed, so that's not a guarantee. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 08:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 *::Since there is no consensus over the reliability of Vice, it cannot be used for establishing notability at all. The source has to be undoubtedly reliable. I agree that the Vice source is insufficient even if the website was a reliable source. [[User:ArvindPalaskar|ArvindPalaskar]] ([[User talk:ArvindPalaskar|talk]]) 08:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
+*'''delete''', no coverage is secondary reliable sources, vice and semi-reliable journal don't prove the book's notability. [[User:Artem.G|Artem.G]] ([[User talk:Artem.G|talk]]) 11:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)