Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Books References

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Literature. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Literature|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Literature. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{ transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{ prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list also includes a sublist or sublists of deletions related to poetry.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Literature

God Sent Me

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

A self-published autobiography about Selman v. Cobb County School District, with no substantial coverage. Walsh90210 ( talk) 18:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 ( talk) 18:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Law, Education, Christianity, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: the Skeptical Inquirer review is sigcov, so it's untrue that there's none, but if that's it then it would fail notability. It needs at least two. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

A Teenager's Dream: Why Do Fools Fall in Love

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

I could find no secondary sources, ie reviews or commentary, about this book. Merge to Jimmy Merchant (as it is a memoir)? PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: I agree with the nom; there doesn't seem to be any critical notice of this book. No reviews, no mentions in RS (or any media), other than what's given in the article. Sourcing used are sales listings and one media item that talks about it; neither of which helps notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. Inajd Inajd0101 ( talk) 02:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment I don't know what to say, but if it isn't notable enough. I guess it is MOST LIKELY to be deleted. However, I added some secondary source for the article but I don't know if that's enough. Inajd Inajd0101 ( talk) 02:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~ Redirect per Cunard: Fails NBOOK, found nothing on ProQuest/Google. At first glance, the tremg.info source added by Inajd0101 doesn't seem reliable. Other sources on article are not independent or are customer review sites. ARandomName123 ( talk)^{Ping me!} 02:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Changed to redirect ARandomName123 ( talk)^{Ping me!} 18:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Jimmy Merchant, the author, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage about the book in my searches for sources.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard ( talk) 08:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: Oaktree b ( talk · contribs), Inajd0101 ( talk · contribs), and ARandomName123 ( talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to Jimmy Merchant per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? PARAKANYAA suggested a merge in the AfD nomination. Cunard ( talk) 08:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Cunard: Yes, a redirect would be fine. ARandomName123 ( talk)^{Ping me!} 18:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Jimmy Merchant: I believe that his memoir should be redirected since there are no secondary source that leads to notability when it comes to its own article, which is fair enough unfortunately. Inajd Inajd0101 ( talk) 12:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Britannica International Encyclopedia

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

No sourcing that I could find besides sales listings and a single sentence mention in an issue of The Booklist from 2008, but there is a language barrier so my Japanese searches may have not been effective. Could probably be merged and mentioned somewhere if there aren't other sources. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect to History of the Encyclopædia Britannica#Global Edition (or create a separate section in that article for non-English editions). Dekimasu よ! 00:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Oregon Battle of the Books

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

Fails WP:NORG. Apart from a momentary controversy six years ago which was written up in the New York Times, the only independent coverage is from brief articles in local media, which per WP:AUD are not an indication of notability. Astaire ( talk) 00:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Events, Organizations, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Stevens, Janet (2015-02-20). "Column: In the Battle of the Books, everyone wins". The Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
  The editorial notes: "You might not have heard of the Oregon Battle of the Books, but for kids from 37 public and private schools in Deschutes County, it’s a big deal, and it’s coming up soon. ... Students across the state get lists of books geared to the competition’s three divisions, third through fifth grades, sixth through eighth grades and high school. There are 16 books on each of the lists for the younger two groups, and a dozen on the one for high schools. ... So I hope the Battle of the Books draws not only confirmed readers but also kids who’ve never really discovered the pleasure that comes from reading."
2. Himstreet, Kim (2017-02-15). "Reading becomes a competitive sport: Local school children duel in Oregon Battle of the Books". The Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
  The article notes: "OBOB was initiated in 2006 and modeled on Battle of the Books programs that have been operating in other states for up to 25 years. The first competitions in Oregon were during the 2007-08 school year. ... Each team comes up with a name (Read S'more, Moustache Winners and Slightly Radioactive Gummy Bears are just a few of this year's examples), and some wear team T-shirts or colors to their battles. Many use strategies such as dividing the required reading up amongst the team members to create subject matter experts, while others take extensive notes and get together after school to quiz one another."
3. Buxton, Matt (2011-04-17). "Brains and books team up at the Oregon Battle of the Books state finals". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
  The article notes: "Emotions ran high at the fifth annual Oregon Battle of the Books, a statewide reading and literacy competition for students grades 3 through 12 Saturday at Chemeketa Community College in Salem. The tournament, sponsored by the Oregon Association of School Libraries, was the culmination of nearly a year of preparation by dedicated students and librarians. Competitors were in three categories, third through fifth grade, sixth through eighth and ninth through 12th. Each group had a reading list of 16 books, from which questions were selected. In all, there were 45 student teams from both public and private schools throughout Oregon."
4. Woolington, Rebecca (2010-03-11). "Book Wars Come to High School: The popular reading competition opens to older students". The Register-Guard. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
  The article notes: "This year marks the first time that the popular reading competition, which made its name in middle and elementary schools across the state, has expanded to the high school level. During this weekend's regional competition at Springfield High School, The Bibliophiles will compete against winning teams from 12 high schools in Lane, Douglas and Coos counties. ... Most teams split the reading load of 16 books among their members, with each member becoming an "expert" on four or five books. Members of both The Bibliophiles and It's a Secret were required to participate for their honors literature course - but they insisted they would have taken part anyway."
5. Davis, Chelsea (2014-01-16). "Battle of the bookworms". The World. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
  The article notes: "Students read 12 books to get ready — from John Green’s “The Fault in Our Stars” to Gaby Rodriguez’s “The Pregnancy Project.” During the round-robin, “quiz bowl” type contest, the bookworms had to answer “In which book...?” and content questions. Teams huddled together, whispering excitedly to get the answer within 15 seconds. Their teammates mouthed the answers to each other in the audience."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Oregon Battle of the Books to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard ( talk) 09:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says:
The source's audience must also be considered. Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability. Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
The Oregonian and The Register-Guard are the largest and second largest newspapers in the American state of Oregon. These two sources, which provide significant coverage about the subject, meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience. Cunard ( talk) 09:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Cry of the Justice Bird

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Can't find any reviews, not even in PW/Kirkus/Booklist afaict. Please ping me if coverage can be found. ARandomName123 ( talk)^{Ping me!} 03:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 ( talk)^{Ping me!} 03:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect to its author, Jon Haylett. A preliminary GNews + ProQuest lookthrough uncovered nothing for this 2007 title. Nominator made the right call in this case. -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect per above. I found only a one sentence mention in an EBSCO resource stating the book won an award - "Jon Haylett's Royal Society of Literature prizewinner Cry of the Justice Bird." Still no sigcov. Maybe add that it won the award to Haylett's page? PARAKANYAA ( talk) 20:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Hm, a prize from the Royal Society is the kind of thing that makes me think it should be notable. ...But actually I think that might be a mistake, and it was one of his short stories that won a prize, per this interview? Per the Royal Society site, his short story won in 2005 but I can't find evidence of other wins. In which case, still no hints of notability. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 03:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Gandhi Under Cross Examination

(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

Delete - Not enough coverage, there is just 1 dubious source and 1 semi-reliable source. NavjotSR ( talk) 07:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. "Gandhi Under Cross Examination book review". Humanism Ireland. November–December 2009. pp. 22–23.
  This book verifies that Humanism Ireland reviewed the book: "638. "Gandhi Under Cross-Examination," book review, Humanism Ireland, Nov/Dec 2009, pp. 22–23".
2. Burrow, Jr., Rufus (Fall 2009). "Gandhi Under Cross-Examination". Encounter. Vol. 70, no. 4. Christian Theological Seminary. pp. 61–72. ProQuest 216773616.
  According to this link:
  
  Christian Theological Seminary has published Encounter: A Journal of Theological Scholarship continuously since 1940. In each of three annual issues, the journal offers scholarly articles, sermons, and reviews of recently published monographs.
  Encounter is a peer-reviewed journal to ensure that its contents meet the highest standards of scholarship and relevance. In particular, the journal publishes works in biblical studies, the history of Christianity, theology, and the arts of ministry, including counseling.
  The review notes: "I was shocked when renowned Martin Luther King, Jr. scholar, Lewis V. Baldwin of Vanderbilt University, asked if I was familiar with the work of an author who argues in Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (2004), and the book under review, that Gandhi was consistently racist toward black South Afrikans during his roughly twenty-one years of living there and leading the Satyagraha campaign for racial justice essentially for the Indian community. ... The book under review is my first exposure to G. B. Singh's contention that Gandhi was a racist and that his story of being subjected to violent racist treatment during his 1893 train and coach ride from Durban to Pretoria was nothing more than a sham, a fabrication, “a ruse, a charade, and theatrical revelry of Academy Awards proportions..." (215). It is not clear just how much the co-author, Tim Watson, actually contributed to the writing of this book."
3. Johnston, Paul (2008-08-04). "Montreal - Gandhi Was a Lying, Racist, Freemason Asshole (Says This Guy)". Vice. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  After reviewing Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Vice Media, I consider Vice to be sufficiently reliable in this context. I found the list of awards Vice won as discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373#Reliability of Vice news? to be compelling. The review notes: "But Tim Watson and G.B. Singh don't buy into the hype. In Gandhi Under Cross-Examination, they create an imaginary courtroom where they can put the screws to an imaginary Gandhi over his non-imaginary racial views, his rampant careerism, and the lies and fabrications at the foundation of his movement for the "firmness of truth." ... I still have no idea what compelled them to put Hillary Clinton on the book's cover."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gandhi Under Cross Examination to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard ( talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Your first source Humanism Ireland fails WP:V and we don't even know how much coverage there was. Your 2nd source is semi-reliable as already discussed above. Your last source Vice is a totally unreliable source and it cannot be used for establishing notability. ArvindPalaskar ( talk) 07:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The Humanism Ireland source is verified by this reliable source. It spans pages 22–23 so it is likely significant coverage. Based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Vice Media and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373#Reliability of Vice news?, I disagree that the Vice article is a "totally unreliable source". Cunard ( talk) 08:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

You are supposed to verify the source yourself. It can be ignored since you haven't done that. WP:VICE is clear that there is no consensus over reliability of Vice, and that's why it cannot be used for establishing notability. I consider Vice to be totally unreliable because most of its articles (including the one cited here) are misleading. ArvindPalaskar ( talk) 08:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#2009 book review of Gandhi Under Cross Examination in Humanism Ireland for more information about the Humanism Ireland source. I maintain that Vice is a suitable topic for this subject matter. Cunard ( talk) 09:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It looks like the Humanism Ireland review was reprinted in the Midwest Book Review, December 2009 if that is easier to access. Astaire ( talk) 15:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you. As noted here, there is a 1,582-word review of the Humanism Ireland review reprinted in the Midwest Book Review in December 2009. This verifies that the review is significant coverage. Cunard ( talk) 08:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. B. Singh (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. Cunard ( talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep per Cunard. I stand by my opinion Vice is fine for this topic, and there is review material in the article. The Humanism source is fine + the journal mentioned before. It's peer reviewed and looks reliable, it doesn't matter that it's obscure. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 09:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. Three reliable and in-depth published reviews is enough for WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK for me. It may be partisan junk but that's not the question; the question is whether it's notable partisan junk and I think this demonstrates that it is. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - Vice, an unreliable source, hasn't actually provided any review for this book. Christian Theological Seminary journal has a doubtful reliability while Humanism Ireland is not accessible for us right now. This is far from meeting WP:NBOOK. The book has failed to attract any reviews from the experts of this subject. Orientls ( talk) 08:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The interview contains critical and review material outside of the actual interview which does count here I'd believe. Vice is not an unreliable source, they are a source that has historically varied in reliability in different topics and editors have not been able to come to an agreement, that does not mean it is unusable for notability.

Just because we can't access the source doesn't mean it doesn't count for notability, see WP:NEXIST.

You've provided no evidence the other journal would be unreliable except it is somewhat obscure - there are plenty of obscure reliable journals. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 20:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
And now we have the source, and it's 1500 words. That is sigcov. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 23:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: Sources given above are more than enough for notability. Not liking this "conspiracy theory" isn't sufficient to have an article deleted. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity

(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
WP:NBOOK does not require sustained coverage for a book to be notable, so the comment about "20-year-old sources" is not relevant. The comment about "garbage books" is also not relevant according to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There have now been three journal reviews found, which is more than enough to meet NBOOK. If these reviews are critical of the book, then the article should make note of that. Astaire ( talk) 15:11, 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
@ ArvindPalaskar On proquest, there are:
- review in Choice, proquest id 225800157
- a review in Free Inquiry, proquest id 230077014
Above NBOOK. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 14:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Also a review in The Humanist, proquest ID 235297768. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 14:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I've verified that the reviews in Choice and Free Inquiry exist. Those two reviews, plus the existing sources in the article, are enough to more than meet the NBOOK threshold. Astaire ( talk) 15:05, 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
Correct, that's why we've found at least 6 below that prove notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Indeed there is only 1 review and that too only tells why this book is faulty. NavjotSR ( talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Steger, Manfred (2005). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". The Historian. 67 (4): 781–782. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6563.2005.00130.x. EBSCOhost 19009759. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The review notes: "If the author had managed to present credible evidence for both theses, his book would have been nothing short of a scholarly sensation, not only invalidating diametrically opposed assessments emerging from nearly eight decades of academic “Gandhiana,” but also dismantling the Mahatma’s popular image. In addition, Singh’s study would constitute a valuable contribution to the existing social science literature on Indian politics. Concerning G. B. Singh’s first thesis, however, this reviewer could not find hard evidence for the sinister manipulations of the “Hindu propaganda machine.”"
  The review notes: "Numerous criticisms of Gandhi’s moral flaws do exist; one only needs to consult pertinent works authored by Ved Mehta, Partha Chatterjee, Joseph Alter, or this reviewer. Yet, out of fairness, these authors balanced their critiques against Gandhi’s impressive moral strengths. By launching a one-sided attack without offering the larger, more complex picture of Gandhi’s ethical and political engagements, the book under review turns into a strident polemic, thus diminishing the considerable value of some of its criticisms."
2. Clark, Thomas W. (July–August 2006). "Gandhi in Question". The Humanist. Vol. 66, no. 4. pp. 45–47. ProQuest 235297768. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The review notes: "G. B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity subjects Gandhi the saint to death by a thousand cuts. The man is portrayed as an impostor who harbored racist attitudes toward South African blacks and whose efforts on behalf of Hindu "untouchables" were misguided half-measures, designed merely to build his own reputation and political influence. Using dozens of quotes from newspapers, letters, and biographies, most of which actually show Gandhi in a positive light, Singh aims to deconstruct what he calls Gandhi's pseudo-history. ... Singh also offers an unsubstantiated hypothesis that Gandhi, in cleaning out files, deliberately destroyed some incriminating documents sometime after 1906. But he has no evidence as to what the missing documents contained. That their content was racist and their destruction part of a coverup is simply speculation on his part."
3. Terchek, R. J. (February 2005). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Choice. Vol. 42, no. 6. p. 1077. doi: 10.5860/CHOICE.42-3580. ProQuest 225800157.
  The review notes: "For career military officer Singh, Gandhi's character and record are dark and troublesome. He finds his subject a racist, "macho," a propagandist, beholden to special interests, a liar, a "superb manipulator," a "witch doctor of the worst kind," the "most bribable of all Congress Party leaders," and the list goes on. The book lacks balance and refuses to acknowledge that people can grow and develop, learn from mistakes, and try to move forward."
4. Narisetti, Innaiah (October–November 2004). "A Critical Look at a National Hero". Free Inquiry. 24 (6): 55–56. ProQuest 230077014.
  The review notes: "Mr. Singh's book attempts to expose the racial prejudices of Gandhi and his followers in South Africa and the sometimes violent nature of his satyagraha movement there and asserts that facts from that period were concealed as biographers, in years to come, relied primarily on Mr. Gandhi's own writings rather than independent research. The author provides a lifeline for Gandhi and a select bibliography as appendices. The book also comes with three unusual caricatures of Gandhi: "Dawn of the New Gandhi," "The Hindu Face of Gandhi the Avatar," and "The Christian Face of Saint Gandhi.""
5. Volin, Katie (2005-01-02). "Gandhi as a racist doesn't add up". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Although changing people's notions of history can be done, it would take a strong argument to convince many people that Gandhi was racist. Establishing the book's incendiary premise becomes the Achilles heel of G.B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. ... Singh's failure to first define racism and second to demonstrate how Gandhi's behavior with regard to other races was socially aberrant in his lifetime weakens the author's argument irreparably. It is rather difficult to market one's book as a scholarly work if basic definitions and sociological conditions are not even given mention."
6. Xavier, William (October 2004). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Reviewer's Bookwatch. Midwest Book Review. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The review notes: "The mud slung at Gandhi by G.B.Singh only adds to the greatness of the Mahatma. (Mahatma means large minded)."
7. Less significant coverage:
  1. "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Reference and Research Book News. Vol. 19, no. 4. Copyright Clearance Center. November 2004. ProQuest 199666401.
    The review provides 78 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "A career military officer and student of Indian politics, Hinduism, and Gandhi, Singh tries to make some sense of the widely divergent images of the Indian leader by various interests appropriating him for their cause"
  2. Sudeep, Theres (2021-08-17). "Rediscover Gandhi this weekend". Deccan Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard ( talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. B. Singh (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination. Cunard ( talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. Multiple reliable and in-depth published reviews (possibly as many as six) is enough for WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK for me. It may be partisan junk but that's not the question; the question is whether it's notable partisan junk and I think this demonstrates that it is. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - They are not really "reviews". The book absolutely does not meet WP:NBOOK, let alone WP:GNG. There is a big difference between advertorials and reviews. The sources mentioned above are either advertorials or fact-check. Orientls ( talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
How are they not reviews/commentary? It doesn't matter if they're strictly delineated "reviews", provided they are significant coverage on the book. There is no evidence they are advertisements and fact-checking a book in a commentary manner would be significant coverage, yes. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 20:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Looking at them they are reviews. Why wouldn't they be? What do you consider a review? This is very far over both NBOOK and GNG. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 23:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: Book review cited in the article and this [1], should be enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Static Line (magazine)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and the article only links to primary sources. toweli ( talk) 17:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Music, Computing, and Internet. toweli ( talk) 17:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 17:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Expectations from the Muslim Woman

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

A lecture that I can't find non-passing coverage of. What sources do exist don't really seem to be discussing this specific lecture, but mentioning it in context for Ali Shariati's views on women and Islam. There is a language barrier however so I could be missing something. If not, redirect to Shariati's biography. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 11:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 11:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge with Ali Shariati Oaktree b ( talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 17:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment If the issue is notability, it seems that finding out how many scholarly works cite Expectations as a source might help. I'm attempting this at Google Scholar, but there are probably more efficient sites out there: [2] I clicked on one of the Google Scholar results, more or less at random, and I got this 2014 study that cites it: [3] And so do these [4] This took probably three minutes. It's likely there are a lot more out there. If anyone has a university JSTOR access, we could have this thing sourced up in no time. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 01:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Darkfrog24 I mean, sure, it's cited, but the issue is I can't find any sources that talk about the actual thing besides the fact that it exists. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 01:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Its academic nature may affect our ability to do that from this side of the paywall. It doesn't look like the sort of thing that would end up in the New York Times book review. Do you have JSTOR access? Darkfrog24 ( talk) 01:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes. Couldn't find anything on that, ProQuest, Gale, etc. If there is sigcov it probably isn't in English, which is the issue. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 01:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I checked and there's one linked article to another Wiki. The sources, whose titles appear in English, seem to be just Expectations itself. I'm comfortable to deletion without prejudice if better sourcing appears, but I'm not confident it exists. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 13:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented by Darkfrog24?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Literature proposed deletions