Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. The issue is whether this book has sufficient coverage for notability. While the "keep" side has proposed references to that effect, the "delete" side has argued that they do not provide significant coverage of the book, but merely mention or cite it. And, crucially, the "keep" side has not addressed these counterarguments, which leads me to give their views less weight. Sandstein 08:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find sufficient coverage in reliable sources for this to meet the

Auxentios (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Currently the sources are insufficient to establish the book as notable per
    WP:NBOOK. The sources cited are: [1], an ebook version of the text; [2], which is supposed to be a bibliography, but the bibliography does not appear on that page; [3], a list of books (including this book) which were being offered for sale in 1997; and [4], a domain which is now for sale and has no relevant content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete The article is totally unreferenced. Metropolitan90 already has described above one working external link that does not even address the above article's subject and is irrelevant here. The other external links are dead. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Entirely meets
    WP:NBOOK. Significant coverage in independent scholarly literature is easily accessible too.[5][6] The nomination makes no sense. Azuredivay (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Neither of those links give the book "significant coverage". Both of those simply cite from the book and that is not enough to meet the
WP:NBOOK guidelines.VR talk 19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep per Azuredivay. Abhi88iisc (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The article refers to several reprints and academic citations. This is sufficient to make it notable. The events of Idian partition are an unpleasant subject, which some may wish to hide from. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron the article doesn't have a single reference or citation.VR talk 19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the onus of demonstrating notability lies on those who wish to keep the article and thus far has not been demonstrated. The article currently doesn't have a single reference.VR talk 19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the book is not reviewed anywhere that I can find; but it is cited, in mostly trivial ways, a few times when searched for using google scholar:[1] Hardyplants (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Google Scholar". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2020-12-21.
The author is notable as well. Azuredivay (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBOOK
.
Both sources above give the book only sentence of coverage. A single sentence of coverage does not count as "non-trivial coverage" as required by
WP:BKCRIT. And neither of them even mention the author of the book. Cataloging is an exclusionary criterion (meaning not all catalogued books merit an article). Finally, the author of the book, Gurbachan Singh Talib, is barely notable himself. He is definitely not "of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study".VR talk 20:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
A single sentence of coverage does not grant a book notability.VR talk 20:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination was a failure of
    WP:NBOOK. Eliko007 (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per Azuredivay.Note this a 1950 book and sources will be offline.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the criteria of
    WP:BOOKCRIT is meeting here. All books written by a notable person do not automatically become notable by inheritance. Excerpts and mentions only prove that the book exists and this is not a hoax article, these links by themselves do not prove notability. The notability bar has been set higher as we cannot have article on every book that gets a mention online. I have spent some time and diligently gone through each and every link/refs provided above, those in the article and through my own searches. Walrus Ji (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • [5] and [6] are passing mentions to this book.
  • Catalogue of a library does not make it notable.
  • Pandey's book is a passing mention of the book where it gets cited once in a paragraph.
  • Ispahani book is a passing mention of the book where it gets cited once in a paragraph.
A notable book will have enough reviews and mentions so that enough material will be available to write a Wikipedia article on the same. This is not the case here, only passing mentions were found. Apart from a couple of lines, there is nothing to write in the article of the book. The lack of critical review by noted scholars is itself a big giveaway that this is not a notable book. Walrus Ji (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in tunes with Walrusji. The book does not deserve an independent entry. The concept is subset of partition riots.TrangaBellam (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:BK. LearnIndology (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2020 (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/Muslim_League_Attack_on_Sikhs_and_Hindus_in_the_Punjab_1947&oldid=996730973"