Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nehru and Bose

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. ✗plicit 03:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nehru and Bose

[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:NBOOK – at least I have not managed to find any other substantial review than the one already in the article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are reviews in India Today, DNA India, Verve, and Free Press Journal in addition to the The Hindu review referenced in the article. Rusalkii (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of these sources to the article. Rusalkii (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The India Today, DNA India and FPJ pieces are not really book reviews – they are commentaries on the relationship between the two politicians; the book only serves as a backdrop. The Verve piece is indeed a review, although it's so brief that all in all I'm not sure the WP:NBOOK threshold has been crossed. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument that the provided links aren't book reviews feels a bit tenuous, the articles are titled "Book review" and are discussing the contents of the book. These are sufficient to meet WP:GNG IMO. NemesisAT (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The India Today contains precisely one short sentence about the book (that's perhaps why it came up in someone's Google search) and is not even titled "review". Similarly, the anonymous FPJ piece (do you often see anonymous book reviews?) contains two sentences about the book itself while 98% of the text are musings about the two politicians. Really, they are weak signs of notability. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the India Today article is "Shahid Amin reviews Nehru and Bose: Parallel Lives" and the title of the book is "Nehru and Bose: Parallel Lives". NemesisAT (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and even then, the author fails to actually review the book. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the five sources that are referred to above are clearly book reviews. Passes both WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just want to say that WP:NBOOK doesn't particularly say reviews (while that is something best to have). If there are coverages around the book which are talking about it in other contexts, that will still count. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to author's article. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2021 (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.