Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose: The Untold Story of An Inconvenient Nationalist


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Bose: The Untold Story of An Inconvenient Nationalist

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NBOOK.

There are no critical reviews of the book. The only noticeable view comes from Vikram Sampath who is himself a fringe pro-Hindutva writer. Editorkamran (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, Politics,  and India.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment There are two reviews in the article, they seem fine. Fringe or not, that's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No it is necessary to have quality reviews. If another fringe author is appreciating another fringe author then it is clear failure of WP:RS. Editorkamran (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that not everyone is going to be familiar with Indian papers or people. Wikipedia is very US and European-centric, with an extra strong emphasis on the UK and the US. It's one of the site's more well-known shortcomings. This means that people will be looking at these sources at face value, so it's important to explain why these sources would be seen as non-reliable and/or fringe. Is the paper pay to play or does it have an affiliation with the author or governmental group? Keep in mind that the articles for the newspapers (Deccan Chronicle and India Today) do not list anything that would immediately identify them as non-RS.
 * If it's more the people than the outlet, a quick look shows that the reviewer for India Today is the paper's executive editor and a general editor for IT's TV edition. There are typically not very many executive editors so this gives off the impression of reliability. The one for the Deccan Chronicle (Shashi Warrier) is a regular contributor and this page about his fellowship with the University of Iowa says that he participates with them through the US Department of State. This implies that they're likely reliable as well. The third reviewer is from the Royal Historical Society - Royal and National Societies are often seen as pretty choosy on who they let into their ranks, so if the person is not reliable there needs to be an explanation as to why this is the case.
 * Now I'm not saying that these people and sources are absolutely 200% reliable or even making a judgment call on the book. I'm just trying to explain why these sources will look reliable to someone unfamiliar with the sourcing. Most US-based search engines (such as Google) don't properly crawl sources published in India, so unless criticism of the reviewers is widely published outside of India there's a very good chance that a search for the names will bring up nothing of concern - which was the case when I searched. Just saying that they're fringe isn't really enough in this situation because on face value the evidence points towards them being reliable. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  17:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I saw where you explained that Sampath was the fringe person, but the point still stands for the other two sites. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  17:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails all points listed at WP:BOOKCRIT. The author is a conspiracy theorist himself so I agree that we must ignore fringe reviews. desmay (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Hagiography by a non-notable author. CharlesWain (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete based on the explanation above, I can't find reviews of the book; if the reviews are non-notable, delete. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , can you check the reception section?
 * Ok, I'll give you the Deccan Chronicle review, it seems fine. I'm assuming of course the Deccan is a RS. I can't comment on the other one, I'm not familiar with the source used. Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting for further input. See DRV discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 23:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep — there’s a source from India Today, and Deccan Chronicle, here as seen in the reception section. I feel as though the supposed nomination was not made from a neutral point of view. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. The author is indeed a conspiracy theorist who claims that Subhas Chandra Bose (the subject of the book) was actually alive after his officially accepted death. Without quality references and quality reviews, this page looks mere promotion. Orientls (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment -- There is no doubt that the book exists. The question whether it is a notable biography.  WP cannot be a forum for an article on every book that is published.  I would suggest that the appropriate course of action may be to redirect to the article on its subject (Bose) and add the title to a list of further reading in it.  If this new book contains substantial new information on the subject, it would be appropriate for that article to be edited and the book cited as a source.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The Deccan Chronicle is a review of the book, I'm expecting that newspaper to be a RS. The other review looks ok, but I'd like some explanation of India Today is a RS. The only mention in GScholar is here, which is connected to the Indian Railways for some reason. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Not sure it I'll have a chance to review the sources in more detail, I don't see any specific issue with the India Today source wrt RS. The content is primary though, in the same way the article from The Times of India is. Would appreciate it if participants could elaborate a little as to what specific concerns they have with the relevant sources and tie them to the relevant parts of DELPOL. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Editorkamran, given that you started the whole AFD, If you have the time can you elaborate a little on how you've arrived at your evaluation for each of the most relevant sources (let's say, the best three)? Just a few words tying things back to a specific segment of NBOOK or FRINGE or NOT or whichever deletion related guideline you think is most relevant, because if nobody does that, I'd virtually guarantee that this will be closed as keep. In fact, I may end up !voting that way myself. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll wait to see how others respond as well. On a side note - I do want to add a rebuttal to something mentioned at DRV: someone mentioned that many books receive reviews nowadays. That's both correct and not.
 * There's a huge difference between reliable and non-reliable reviews. It's incredibly easy to get non-reliable reviews. You can literally buy them by the dozen. This is not the case for reviews in reliable sources. The vast, VAST majority of books released on any given day will fail notability guidelines. Some may get maybe a single RS review, but no more than that. Even landing on the NYT bestseller list isn't a guarantee of notability, nor is being a mainstream author. Those may make it more likely to get reviews, but it's far from a guarantee. I'd say that maybe 10% of what's published get RS reviews. Far less than that get enough reviews or other coverage. Reviews are still a good way to determine notability. Rather than say no reviews it's better to specify which reviews.
 * I'll leave that there. I almost didn't want to post that, except that it came up in DRV and may be pertinent to this AfD. In this case the fringe person should be excluded as a RS here. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 16:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Unlikely that this book will be ever used as a source on Wikipedia. 3 or 4 reviews are easy to find about many books. The notability of this book is really doubtful. Dympies (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But, according to NBOOK a book will be 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. So, not 3-4, just 2 independent reviews are enough for a book to be notable. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to meet both the GNG and WP:NBOOK (with reviews). If someone can argue that the sources aren't in reliable places, I'll listen.  Otherwise this looks like it meets our inclusion requirements. Hobit (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There are 3 reviews. One is from Vikram Sampath (a "fringe pro-Hindutva writer" as above and here too), then there is India Today which is Godi media and finally there is a review by Deccan herald. Overall, we have only 1 reliable source while the other two are unreliable. Delete is the right option. Azuredivay (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Vikram Sampath's comment and India Today's article are not claimed as non-trivial published works.
 * Subject of two or more non-trivial published works:
 * Book Review | Relook at Netaji, the inconvenient one who made all the hard choices - The Deccanchronicle
 * New book explores ‘hidden’ political legacy of Subhas Chandra Bose in 2010 declassified files - The Print
 * Books with the India twist - The Statesman
 * New biography of Subhas Chandra Bose with untold stories to release in February 2022 - The Times of India
 * Thank you. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The links from The Print, The Statesman and The Times of India are PR materials thus not WP:RS. Editorkamran (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you considering 3 links (articles) as PR materials? It would be better to explain. Especially in the case of the links from The Print and The Statesman. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep — Multiple sources and reviews are available from a quick search. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But which sources are reliable? Editorkamran (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete insufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources (fringe Hindutva propaganda outlets are not reliable) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Times of India and The Statesman are fringe? Hobit (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If The Times of India, The Indian Express, The Telegraph (India), The Statesman (India) and Deccan Chronicle are fringe Hindutva propaganda outlets, then which newspapers (specifically in India) do you think are reliable sources? -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Since this has been more or less going along the same lines as pre-DRV, I've posted this to RSN. Maybe someone from there would be able to elaborate on whether the sources are good or bad, and more importantly, the why Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete It doesn't matter what the politics of the Times of India or The Statesman are, because both "reviews" are not even reviews, but advertorials. The Print one is as well - the only one that comes close to being an actual review is the Deccan Chronicle one. Paid advertising masquerading as coverage is definitely not WP:RS. Black Kite (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete is right that most of the "reviews" cited as sources in the current version of the article are in fact advertorials, as is obvious from their regurgitation of a statement issued by the publisher (sometimes with attribution; sometimes without) as shown below. After we exclude these unlabeled press releases, author interviews, and coverage of book release events as non-independent, we are essentially left with the Deccan Chronicle article, which discusses the book (as opposed to Bose) in its first para, and The Sunday Guardian piece, a paean in a pretty-iffy source.


 * "...thoughts on independent India's development, the problem of communalism, geopolitics, his political ideology, and how he negotiated with the political parties, revolutionary societies, and the government."

- Times of India


 * "...thoughts on independent India’s development, the problem of communalism, geopolitics, his own political ideology and how he negotiated with the political parties, revolutionary societies and the government."

- Indian Express


 * "“The book throws light on Bose’s intense political activities around the revolutionary groups in Bengal, Punjab, Maharashtra and the United Provinces; his efforts to bridge the increasing communal divide and his influence among the splintered political landscape; his outlook on and relations with women; his plunge into the depths of spirituality; his penchant for covert operations; and his efforts to engineer a rebellion among the Indian armed forces,” a statement by the publisher said."

- Times of India


 * "New information throws light on Bose’s intense political activities surrounding the revolutionary groups in Bengal, Punjab, Maharashtra and United Provinces, his efforts to bridge the increasing communal divide and his influence among the splintered political landscape; his outlook and relations with women; his plunge into the depths of spirituality; his penchant for covert operations and his efforts to engineer a rebellion among the Indian armed forces."

- The Statesman


 * "Ghose sheds light on Bose’s political career, including his activities with revolutionary groups in regions like Maharashtra and West Bengal, his views on women and spirituality, his efforts to bridge communal tensions, and his attempts to create a rebellion among the Indian armed forces that ultimately led to the fall of the British empire in India."

- The Print


 * "...new information throwing light on Bose’s intense political activities surrounding the revolutionary groups across the country; his efforts to bridge the increasing communal divide; his penchant for covert operations and his efforts to engineer a rebellion among the Indian armed forces that accelerated the end of British rule in India"

- Tribune India''


 * "“The book throws light on Bose’s intense political activities around the revolutionary groups in Bengal, Punjab, Maharashtra and the United Provinces; his efforts to bridge the increasing communal divide and his influence among the splintered political landscape; his outlook on and relations with women; his plunge into the depths of spirituality; his penchant for covert operations; and his efforts to engineer a rebellion among the Indian armed forces,” a statement said."

- The Indian Express


 * This is pretty thin sourcing for a historical biography that was published a year back, which seems to have garnered no attention from historians or experts in its subject area. Abecedare (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Users judge the notability of the article mostly based on the quality of reviews. I don't know why most users are doing this. Reviews are not the only criteria for a book's notability, as is clearly mentioned in the WP:BOOKCRIT. Apart from reviews; newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and bestseller lists are mentioned as criteria. Thus, two independent news articles are enough to qualify a book as notable. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Except that we don't have two independent (i.e. non-advertorial) non-trivial news articles with any depth. Black Kite (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The input from RSN solidly eliminates The Print in my opinion which brings me fully over to a delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete not enough reliable sources with significant coverage. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete fails wp:nB, as per source analysis and nomination Karnataka (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2023 (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.