Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Brother (book)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep.  Sandstein  07:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Brother (book)

edit
My Brother (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very little coverage that I can find, does not seem to have made much of an impact. Two mentions on google news, one a passing mention. The other a dead link. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Notable book, sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. And a series of academic work on it [12]. Darkness Shines has a given history of tagging Pakistan related articles with Afd/CSD which turn out to be against deletion criteria or notable. So far all of such articles where I've commented were kept as a result of discussion (with one restored from CSD). --lTopGunl (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will review these and let you know what I find, I can tell you your first source only mentions the book in passing and is actually a review on a book on the life of the author. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Second source is just a mention of the book. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Third source a single quote from the book no other coverage.
  3. Just a single mention in passing.
  4. Just a single mention in passing.
  5. This one is a review, so far we have one.
  6. Brief mention in passing.
  7. Do not see it in here at all? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. A single passing mention.
  9. A single passing mention.
  10. Cannot find it mentioned here either? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The first page on Gbooks shows only passing mentions also. Not really Significant coverage as TG alludes to. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. In response to TG's flawed Google search. There are 147 results on books. The first two pages show singular brief mentions only. There are 12,700 on a general Google search, apart from pirate sites the first few pages seem much the same as the rest of the search's, no reliable sources giving in depth coverage of the subject. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
325 "passing mentions" in google books and 24,500 in a google search... says something else. A complete review on the book (along with authors biography) is not a passing mention. As the user below confirms, this is one of the most notable biographies of M.A. Jinnah. The fact that many biographies themselves quote this book with the reference to its notability is in itself an argument for it to be kept. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brief passing mentions in the sources you provided to not quite give the "Significant coverage" required to meet WP:NOTE We have only one review. That is not what I would call Significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually this book is among one of the quite few notable biographies on M.A. Jinnah, and more so considering the fact that it was written by his sister who, by all accounts, played the most influential role throughout his life and political career. Sources by TG can also be used in the article if appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the stub can have all the sources... may be this was good for it in the end. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, as the sources you found do not cover the book in any detail bar one. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on my review of the sources given by TopGun above the article fails WP:BK which says The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary As we have but one review on the book then it will not be possible to expand it beyond a plot summary which the one review given actually is. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know this argument belongs to the article talk and not the Afd? Improving the article is a different story than proving the subject's notability. We have loads of references here both in the academic work and the news results to prove that. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it gets quite tedious when you post a great many links to prove notability, then when I take the time to check said links they turn out to be of no use. The references are no good, they do not discuss the subject in detail. Passing mentions are not notable. The only think your "loads of references" prove is that the book is not notable. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are not the only one who has to check the links. I disagree with you over that as these actually are multiple mentions that prove notability (I've also give a gbooks search link which gives many more). Let this be checked by others as well. It is WP:Tendentious editing tagging every other article for Afd this way. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
non-trivial Do you know what that means? It means more than a mention, she wrote a book called my bro is not significant coverage. What part of this do you not get? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, they establish the notability of the author, not the book. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and you've made your view on this abundantly clear. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have cleaned up the article some, added some of the sources, etc. Another thought: Beyond the sources argument, I also wonder if it passes WP:NBOOK point #3 - The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. Considering how influential the writer and subject are in Pakistan's development, how the book is all about detailing his political achievements because it was felt other biography's didn't do a good enough job, and how frequently the book is mentioned in biography's of the two, I feel it could be relevant. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I think it is good enough per WP:HEY now. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:04, 8 February 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,  Sandstein  17:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note; There's further relevant discussion and sources at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 12. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Del Rev brought foreth the additional source from the Daily Times [13], a very extensive detailed review of the book. In view of that, it's a clear keep. The interpretation of "multiple sources" normally used here is "multiple sources or one really excellent source" rather than being taken literally--all notable guidelines are flexible. Anyway, there are now multiple source. I tend to be rather skeptical about NBOOK, on the basis that 2 relatively trivial reviews is not enough in many subjects--where any academic book will be reviewed by the professional journals as a matter of course. But this now fully meets any reasonable interpr etation of the standard. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was the only source presented above which discussed the book in any detail, we still have b but one source. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:12, 12 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/My_Brother_(book)&oldid=1138106290"