Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Resistance to Early Muslim Invaders Up to 1206 A.D.


 * 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. Wizardman 19:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Indian Resistance to Early Muslim Invaders Up to 1206 A.D.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Not a significant enough book to meet the WP:GNG. The book, while it exists, is not mentioned significantly in any major sources. A mere mention in book review blogs don't cut it. Tavix | Talk  02:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep While not a very useful article, the book itself seems to meet notability requirements since published reviews are cited. The editor would do better to contribute to the articles on the historic events themselves. Borock (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the book makes interesting points about a rather grey era of history, and is a useful contribution to popular history. The author has chosen a field of study too long neglected.  That makes it notable enough.--Brunnian (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the "interesting points" should be related in articles about the events. This article should be about the book. See: WP:Coatrack (as you probably already have heard of.)Borock (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And perhaps they will be. But they also represent a non-main-line approach to history that makes the book notable, and hence worthy of an article.--Brunnian (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that WP have less articles on non-fiction books, unless they are very influential and/or the topic of controversy. In most cases the article tends to be about the contents of the book and should be merged with the article on that, with the book cited as a source. It comes out to the same thing. Borock (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Fiction books should mostly be merged to the article on their authors. P.P.S. I think that Indian Resistance to Early Muslim Invaders is a tremedously important and interesting topic that I really should know more about. Borock (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- - Spaceman  Spiff  17:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- - Spaceman  Spiff  17:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete No third party reviews in RSs, and it's just a reprint of his thesis, a/c Worldcat. Essentially zero library holding in the US--not that WCat covers India, but still I;d expect at least a few.    DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. I cannot believe I'm saying this!  JBsupreme (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-fiction books are not generally notable unless there is some compelling reason why they should be. I can see no such reason here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The book is cited in other works and presumably is a reliable source for use in articles, but for a book to be the subject of its own article there needs to be some commentary about the book, not just citations of it. On that score, the only thing presented so far is a single review from a weekly paper. That's just not enough coverage to establish notability, nor is there any evidence that this book has met any specialized criteria per WP:BK, such as winning awards. --RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2009 (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.