Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India that is Bharat (book) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Regardless of the recent discussion, consensus appears to be clearly in the opposite direction this time. Star  Mississippi  02:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

India that is Bharat (book)
AfDs for this article:


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

This book does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS:
 * CIS is a blog within the Hindutva ecosystem. Do not be misled by its association with a private university of no repute.
 * Hindu Business Line != The Hindu. Reviews in the former are mostly promotional. See Paid news in India etc.
 * Book review by a first-year law student at a random website fails RS.

A review over Firstpost and a mini-review within an op-ed (The Print) do not make it. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I don't quite understand the discussion here as this article was just at AFD six months ago and had substantial support. What has changed? Did sources get removed from the article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Somewhat hesitant rename to page about author. There's a lot of noise about the book in blacklisted sources, and some passing mentions here and there. There's also a review in what seems to be a very questionable law journal, that says very little that is comprehensible or substantive, and is apparently written by a university student; I assume that's what TB refers to above. All of these sources imply that the book is engaged in some amount of historical revisionism: this isn't by definition a bad thing, but it does mean we need secondary sources that actually examine the text in detail. Of these, the First Post review is the only one that does so: the only other source of arguable reliability, Krishnan's, does little more that regurgitate the book's content. However, there is some coverage of the author's role as an attorney in high-profile cases; the sum total of coverage may be sufficient for a stub about him. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS. My own searching agrees with nominator. 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. I am opposed to a rename to non notable author. This is also linked with a hatnote from Constitution of India that I find disturbing. --Venkat TL (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "India that is Bharat" gets less than one hit per day on average. I'm simply going to redirect it to the book, and remove the hatnote; otherwise the hatnote is verging on promotional, regardless of whether it was intended that way. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Never mind; I see Tayi Arajakate made the page move, and as such it's a contested redirect; I'm not messing with it. We'd need a separate discussion, unless wishes to undo their page move, which led to the hatnote. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't the hatnote just be removed? I moved the page from "India that is Bharat" to "India that is Bharat (book)" and redirected the former to the Constitution. The term is known for being the starting phrase of the Constitution (see this article for context) so I thought it was promotional to have its Wikipedia page be about the book or the redirect towards it. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 13:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support removing the hatnote. Venkat TL (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure of any guideline that deals with hatnotes over redirect, so I've removed it. Though if there's any and this causes too much problems, anyone is free to revert my page move. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 13:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * One "keep" from the previous AfD was blocked for socking. Also, procedural niceties aside, I don't find the evidence at the last AfD persuasive; I believe evidence of reliability wasn't examined closely enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That was my premise behind launching this discussion, as well. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that insight, Vanamonde and TrangaBellam. I appreciate you looking at the last AFD. I was just surprised at the swing of editor opinion on this article. But, as I've learned working with AFDs in 2022, decisions are based on arguments put forward in a discusssion but also on who decides to show up and participate. Liz Read! Talk! 08:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS.4meter4 (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2022 (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.