Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India that is Bharat (book)

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!} 00:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India that is Bharat (book)

India that is Bharat (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the deletion. The book has received wide attention from both public and academia. The interviews, OP is talking about are indeed promotional material organized by the publisher, as is the case. The book still is one of the best selling books in Amazon India (#37, as of now). It has also been included in the official curriculum of an Indian University polsci course. HemaChandra88 (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• — Note to closing admin:
  XfD
  .
• Quick note: Amazon sales rankings won't count towards notability on Wikipedia. There are a number of reasons for this. The first is that the rankings are very dynamic and prone to change. Another is that since they're dynamic, it's possible for someone to manipulate the rankings - something that can and has happened on Amazon pretty regularly. I'm not saying that this is the case with this book, just that this type of manipulation is so common that this invalidates Amazon rankings as notability giving. Finally, there's often little to no coverage of Amazon sales rankings outside of the author and their publisher and Amazon itself typically doesn't cover everyday sales rankings. It's actually not included unless the ranking is pretty heavily covered in independent, secondary coverage in reliable sources. Even then it's usually not included, to be honest. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Although
  WP:NBOOK criteria 4 allows books to be deemed notable if they are the subject of study at schools, it explicitly excludes textbooks. In other words, when a poem like To India - My Native Land is used in school, the subject of study is the poem itself, whereas when a history book is used in school, the subject of study is history. So, appearing on the curriculum does not help the notability case here. We'd need to find reviews. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Lack of significant coverage. No review by reputed publisher or author. Promo type coverage or interviews are dependent coverage and do not count towards notability. Venkat TL (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The reviews from Firstpost and the Centre for Indic Studies seem to be independent and significant enough to meet
  WP:BOOKCRIT #1. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  CIS is not a reliable source. Venkat TL (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not? Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It claims to be a research wing of a college.

  WP:BOOKCRIT#1 is not met. Please check it to see what is required. The author is a lawyer writing about history. I am not surprised that critics worth their salt are not reviewing his work. Firstpost is a reliable source, but the tone of the FP review is clearly promotional of the book. In my opinion paid news.Venkat TL (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I did read

  WP:BOOKCRIT

  #1, and I still don't understand why the review shouldn't apply. The author of the review is independent of the work and the author, as an associate professor of history, has the credentials as a reliable source.

  Even discounting the CIS source there's another independent review at The Hindu Business Line. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Author of HBL is mentioned as Sai Deepak. It will not count as independent. Venkat TL (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sai Deepak is listed as the author of the book being reviewed not the article. The formatting on the HBL site is weird, but the Proquest entry lists the author of the review as Nanditha Krishna. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: as source quality discussion is still ongoing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  WP:RS simply mean to understand if the material published on that source is fact checked or not. That's the fundamental of it. For reviews, it is complicated because reviews are not facts but opinions. Center for Indic studies, to me, doesn't look like a website that does reviews a lot or publishes news. It does host books which is different. I am leaning towards NOT counting that as a source for notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep:
  WP:BOOKCRIT
  gives this book an easy pass - two or more non-trivial published works on the book have appeared in sources unrelated to the book.

Book Review by

WP:THEHINDU (link

)

Book Review by a History professor at O.P. Jindal University (link). The same review was republished by CIS, Indus University (Gujarat) (link). As a result, we can count it as one.

Book review by a first-year law student at National Law University, Jodhpur (link). - Hatchens (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets
  WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV but that should not affect the notability of the subject. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep - Since
  WP:BOOKCRIT is easily met, and per above comments. This is the first time in my life I am seeing the reliability of the above mentioned sources called into question.--NØ 18:38, 25 March 2022 (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.