Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Few Things Left Unsaid


 * 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   no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Few Things Left Unsaid

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't see a single trace of notability as we need per WP:NBOOK. Created by User:Sudeep Nagarkar, who shares name with the author of the book, thats the only edit made by this user. Also the author's article Sudeep Nagarkar is AfD by me. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 08:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 08:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 08:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

""A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources including reviews" (WP:BKCRIT)."
 * Comment: Bunch of unreliable and dead links. There's only one working secondary, independent and reliable source . Unfortunately one is just not enough. At least first 7 google search page results into none RS. However, taking into consideration multiple reviews published into many online stores, notability could be established as NBOOK says,
 * Anupmehra - Let's talk!  16:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Which "multiple reviews" are you talking about? Can you link some here? The one TOI link you gave above says "A recently published book, "Few Things Left Unsaid" sold 8,000 copies within a fortnight." and that's all it writes about the book. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant these,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc. These reviews in multiple sources might help to establish notability of this particular book as per NBOOK (WP:BKCRIT). Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  07:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Publishing of the stuff like; book's-name, author's-name, about-author, book's-plot, price-discounts-if-added-to-cart, out-of-stock-status, reader's-views; don't count as book review. Thats called online advertising for online shopping.These all sites are actually selling the book. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 08:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they are selling books but they have published review of the book as well. For example, please visit one more time these two links,, . They have "Overview" and "Author" section and they discuss the same. Doesn't it contribute to establish notability of the subject? Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  09:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Those two aren't proper critical reviews that offer the opinion and analysis of an educated/experienced critic. They are just describing what the plot is about. Wikipedia doesn't use reviews written by members of the public (which the crossword.in review appears to be) or reviews that are just descriptions of a product on sale (the rediff.com "review" is more like a publisher's blurb). Notability is shown by being reviewed in a publication that is selective about what it reviews; the reliability of a source is shown either by the reputation of the source or of the author, and the fact that submissions are edited and fact-checked. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Backing up what Colapeninsula is saying here: most of the sources are either merchant sites (which are pretty much never usable as a source in any fashion) or they're social media type sites where anyone can review. I hate to put it this way, but the given opinion of the general public doesn't count towards notability. Only the reviews by organizations, publications, and individuals that meet our WP:RS guidelines can count towards notability. This rules out a lot of blog sources, as most of them are self-published, aren't run through any sort of verifiable editing process, etc. (See WP:BLOGS) There are exceptions to the blog rule, but it's fairly rare and usually it's only a usable source when you have someone along the lines of Michiko Kakutani or YALSA posting something on their blog. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:32, 22 March 2014 (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.