Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anything but Khamosh


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Anything but Khamosh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable book, getting trivial coverage from association. WP:NOTINHERITED §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: It probably meets BOOKCRIT#1 which states, A book is notable if, The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.


 * Sources: Outlook India, Hindustan Times, Hindustan Times-2, Telegraph India, Telegraph India-2, Firstpost, Free Press Journal. For more, click here or do a simple Google search. Anup   [Talk]  06:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Extracts, excerpts and newsbites are different from book reviews. Which of this is a review? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hindustan Times-2. Anyway, the guideline says nothing about "book-review", it says, "subject of two or more non-trivial published works". Anup   [Talk]  07:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2 book reviews: Hindustan Times and Bollywood Hungama. --Skr15081997 (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * HT's review is just paraphrashing of book, an non-lazy form of quotefarming but not review. A Bollywood film portal is not a suitable reviewer of literature. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Read HT review carefully. Does the 2nd and the last para look like mere paraphrasing. --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. These two paras of the ten paras of article that you mention have two common repetitive points: that the book is well-researched and it has lotsa gossips and trivia. Makes the book more notable now! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You still feel that the 2 required sources for meeting WP:NBOOKS should be reviews? --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again asking for my feelings/thought? Ready to be offended again? The two or more sources should be non-trivial as NBOOK says and all lengthy sources that simply copy-paste book's content do not count. Also, they have to be about the book. This should exclude press coverage of book release and actual life of Sinha. §§Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You can express yourself without offending others. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: passes WP:BOOKCRIT, multiple reliable sources present. Most of which are non-trivial. Pratyush (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: I had created this article after finding multiple reliable sources which covered the subject in detail. It passes WP:NBOOKS. --Skr15081997 (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Topic under discussion satisfies the inclusion criteria. use these sources to expand the present one-line stub?  Anup   [Talk]  09:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not see any justification for a "standalone" piece for this topic. This one-line article on book is already covered in author's article. If and when more target article is edited to add more verifiable contents and it becomes a possibility that holding contents on this book in here, might make navigation difficult, we can do a split. Anup   [Talk]  07:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * NBOOK also says This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, among many other things. Are you suggesting a 'merge', therefore? I think, that could be discussed given the size of existing article. Anup   [Talk]  15:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge Though the author is significant, the book is not. We need expert reviews about the article. - <span style="color:#808080;font-size:15px;font-family:'Georgia, serif';font-style: italic;font-weight: bold;">Vivvt ( Talk )
 * Sorry I was under the impression that it's an autobiography but it is not. Looks like author is also not notable. - <span style="color:#808080;font-size:15px;font-family:'Georgia, serif';font-style: italic;font-weight: bold;">Vivvt ( Talk ) 04:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be messing it up here. Author is one-time Bollywood superstar (worked for more than 4 decades), and two-time member of parliament (last election won in 2014 for 5-years). Article is one-sentence long and is "already merged" in the target article (a redirect therefore?). Anup   [Talk]  07:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Author of this book is Bharathi S. Pradhan. It could have been an autobiography if Sinha himself had been the writer. - <span style="color:#808080;font-size:15px;font-family:'Georgia, serif';font-style: italic;font-weight: bold;">Vivvt ( Talk ) 09:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not seem to be any evidence at all that the book is notable--just routine coverage. No suitable merge.  DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a little query after reading your opinion. If the given sources merely indicate routine coverage, then what kind of coverage proves notability? Just a small query. Thanks, --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * the references are about the subject of the book, not the book. It can be an unclear distinction, and if a book is really important over time we could make a separate article. As an example, Even for famous people,  most bios are just listed in the Additional Reading--the most famous bios only get a separate article, and the usual distinction is a major prize in the books own right.    DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC).
 * I do think the references are talking about the book, see about the book, again about the book, book review, about the book and many others, try a google search. Since the book is a biography, a news article talking about the book will talk about the actor because the whole book is about him. I don't know what is done with other bios, I believe you in good faith if you say so, but according to my knowledge there is no such guideline. What I do know is the notability guidelines for books (factors which determine whether a book is notable or not) are listed at WP:BOOKCRIT and the subject clearly passes the 1st point of BOOKCRIT, which makes it notable enough to have a separate article. Pratyush (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The three "about the book" refs are literally quote farms and "the review" is paraphrasing of quotes! §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 19:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Sportsfan 1234, can you amplify your opinion a bit. As far as I can see, this meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS. --Skr15081997 (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: The reason given by nominator was trivial coverage resulting from association (WP:NOTINHERITED). But a search for the book's title yields numerous incidents of significant coverage in media. Now just because the book happens to be the biography of an actor-turned politician does it makes the book ineligible for an article in spite of meeting WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS. Of course the article is just a one-liner. We could solve this issue by expanding it. Deletion won't help. The kind of coverage received by the book is same as that received by any other notable book, or is there any other type of specific coverage the book hasn't received? I don't think so. --Skr15081997 (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You very well will fluff it with trivia, add all names of celebrities who know nothing about writing and came to the inaugural ceremony and blabbered their hearts out, you will then go on and write book review written by film critics who are unsuitable for doing that, you will write what fellow-politicians tweeted about the book content and then you will select few quotes from the book and increase the article length; nothing of it amounting to stand-alone notability and failing WP:AVOIDSPLIT. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What made you think all that? Does WP:NOTINHERITED is the only reason you think the article should be deleted for? --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your past track record. Re-read all comments so far. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please avoid personal attacks. Try to keep the comments related to the subject. Pratyush (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My thought was asked and here it is. If you can't digest it, you are free to not talk to me. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I might be wrong but your 3 comments above indicate that you are a bit angry with me or this whole discussion. Remember my friend Dharma that if the concerned parties keep a cool head then results might be produced easily. But in the end we are free to disagree. You have stated your viewpoint very clearly. I myself don’t know about any politician’s tweet regarding this book and if this becomes a reason for disagreement, it can be solved at the concerned article’s talk page. You have mentioned my past track record Dharma, but as far as I can remember I never added someone’s irrelevant blabbering or random tweet to an article. I’ll glad if you show me the diffs to any such edit. The author is a well known film journalist and columnist and based on the provided sources, the stub can be expanded into a decent size start-class article. Thanks for the time you are putting in deletion discussions. We need more editors like you. Thanks again. --Skr15081997 (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw, NBOOK also says "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book." Why aren't you taking all your sources and writing a small para about this biography in Sinha's biography itself? If author is notable, you are welcome to work on Draft:Bharathi S. Pradhan. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to author page (whoever that  is). Clearly  fails WP:NBOOK. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Try having a look at WP:BOOKCRIT, specially the 1st point. Pratyush (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- not notable, and neither is the author. Optionally redirect to Shatrughan Sinha, who is the subject of the book. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge, redirect and expand the article Shatrughan Sinha with a new section possibly called Anything but Khamosh, a biography, including the references. The book attracted attention of independent sources and definitely deserves a mention in the main article about the actor/politician. It is in my opinion a better option than deleting possibly valuable and verifiable piece of information. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per . I don't see how this is independently notable. Now open for over 40 days, this discussion is getting stale. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG& WP:NBOOK. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 17:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.