Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judge Pal: International Military Tribunal for the Far East and Indian nationalism


 * 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.  Sandstein  21:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Judge Pal: International Military Tribunal for the Far East and Indian nationalism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable book. Only source is amazon. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 20.  — cyberbot I  Notify Offline 08:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication of notability, no coverage in reliable, third party sources, not even an article in the book's native language version of Wikipedia, which is certainly big enough and active enough for that to be a meaningful distinction (especially as it would be useful in deciding whether or not we're simply missing the sources because they're not in English or if there simply aren't any).  S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - currently this is just a chapter listing, and would have to be started over from scratch. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 23.  — cyberbot I  Notify Offline 04:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 24.  — cyberbot I  Notify Offline 01:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 24.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 16:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I probably have to disagree with the general consensus, but I found very reliable sources. This is from the New York Times, this one from The Hindu, this journal from the Asiatic Society. The article is in a horrible state, I agree, but it is sure notable enough to be kept. I found many a source by a quick Googling. Ethically (Yours) 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Improved the article's condition. Marked it as a stub and added references. Ethically</b> (<b style="color:#000">Yours</b>) 16:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In those 3 sources, I only see coverage for the Judge and why he is notable, I see no mention at all of this book. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The New York Times source says about it in the very beginning. <b style="color:#060">Ethically</b> (<b style="color:#000">Yours</b>) 07:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see now. Well, as it mentions neither the author nor the book by name...and even if it did it would only have been a passing mention...it is insufficient in determining notability. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sources found by User:Ethically Yours are not significant coverage of the book, rather about Judge Pal, that mention the book in passing. If there are significant book reviews in Japanese that would be helpful. -- GreenC  18:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep We need to know about the judge and the book. The references are sufficient.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of notability, and I agree that there is no coverage in reliable, third party sources. This article should probably be merged into another article dealing with the topic at hand or be used as a bibliography citation for Indian Nationalism. BerkeleyLaw1979 (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - The judge is notable, but the book is not. There is evidence of significant coverage about the book. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 27 January 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.