Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoginder Sikand

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoginder Sikand

[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)

Fails WP:GNG, Several articles authored by the subject are frequently cited as references; however, they have yet to receive significant mainstream media coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Jannatulbaqi (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Authors. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources to establish notability, mainly are self published, fails WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I find several reviews of the books [1][2][3][4], also [5] (but I'm not sure of the reliability of the last source). I think it's enough for WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Russ Woodroofe: Thank you for bringing to light some of these reviews. Now, each work or book should be the primary subject of multiple independent reviews and these 4 reviews are on different books. Can you find one more additional review for any of the book that you found the reviews for? Then I think, it will pass WP:NAUTHOR criteria. Please ping me if you find an additional review and I will reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my reading of AUTHOR, but in any case Russ Woodroofe's reviews 1 & 3 above are both of The Origins and Development of the Tablighi-Jamaʿat (1920–2000). A Cross-county Comparative Study. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NAUTHOR says that a collective body of work should have been the subject of multiple reviews. If it was mainly one work, then I would !vote for a redirect to that work, but I see one book with two reviews, and two other reviewed books. This is just about the minimum that I am looking for in NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see 1 & 3 above reviews are on same book. I will change my vote to weak keep because if we remove the sources on the page that are dead and unreliable then these are the only 4 reviews that remain that can be attributed to the page. RangersRus (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep. All sources on the page are unreliable, dead domains, page not found and non-secondary independent. ~~Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NBIO. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as writer is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)~~ but 4 reliable sources with reviews were found with one work having multiple reviews that makes the author pass WP:NAUTHOR. RangersRus (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure why the rush to delete this. Several of the books look to have healthy citations in GS, and Russ Woodroofe has found multiple reviews. Merely having dead links on the article is not a deletion rationale. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always make sure to preserve articles and only consider deletion after thorough investigation. I would advise other editors to follow the same approach: take your time, conduct careful research, and then provide your comments. Avoid rushing the process. Thank you--- Jannatulbaqi (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to get additional opinions on the book reviews brought to this discussion and whether or not they satisfy WP:NAUTHOR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've evaluated the reviews brought by Russ Woodroofe and agree they are sufficient to meet AUTHOR. Agree it is unclear whether we can count #5. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Meets WP:NAUTHOR. I changed my vote above after reviews shared by Russ Woodroofe. These 4 reviews will be the only reliable sources if we remove all the unreliable and dead links on the page. More reliable sources will be needed to attribute to the BIO of the author and other areas on the page. This is the only reason I am weakly keeping it. RangersRus (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Withdraw: I am very impressed by the comments and sources provided by 'Professor Russ Woodroofe' and admin 'Espresso Addict'. Therefore, I am withdrawing my nomination. Thank you very much. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Prof. @Russ Woodroofe and @Espresso Addict! Jannatulbaqi (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can just vote "Withdraw" as nominator of this AFD instead of voting keep. Closer will just close with withdraw conclusion. RangersRus (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Thank you @RangersRus! Jannatulbaqi (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But note that while TheSlumPanda's delete !vote stands, the AfD can't be closed as withdrawn. (A passing administrator might still close as a keep, as I think that a consensus may have emerged.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2024 (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.