Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Londonstani


 * 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   keep. Nominator has withdrawn but I think this discussion has been open long enough for a full "keep". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Londonstani

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article on non-notable book (per WP:NB) mostly consisting of a plot summary. Nableezy (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to passing admin (or anyone else capable and interested): Nominator has agreed to withdraw the AfD--see message on my talk page. Thanks, and thanks to the nominator, Drmies (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

*Delete per WP:IINFO. --Jza84 | Talk
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- Nableezy (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hate to do it, but delete. It's available at major libraries (King County Library System has at least a dozen]], but that's all it has.  Worldcat shows many results.  Unfortunately, a library search doesn't make it meet WP:NB.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 05:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to Keep per improvements. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 05:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep satisfied by recent improvements to page. --Jza84 | Talk  12:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Gautam Malkani, the author. Enough notability (substantial coverage in reliable source) for book and author to warrant including together. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bad article, and possibly a bad book, but it was noticed plenty and should be plenty notable. A Google News search delivers dozens and dozens of hits for reviews and articles from very reputable sources (Guardian, Independent, Times, Telegraph, Washington Post, LA Times...), and Google Books shows a number of books have already cited and discussed this work (one of those entries is indexed by the MLA also: Mitchell, Michael: "Escaping the Matrix: Illusions and Disillusions of Identity in Gautam Malkani's Londonstani (2006)" In (pp. 329-340) Eckstein, Lars (ed. and introd.); Korte, Barbara (ed. and introd.); Pirker, Eva Ulrike (ed. and introd.); Reinfandt, Christoph (ed. and introd.), Multi-Ethnic Britain 2002+: New Perspectives in Literature, Film and the Arts. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi, 2008.). Clearly this was a novel that had an impact. Did I say keep already? Please reconsider, all you deleters... Drmies (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of books are reviewed by a lot of reputable sources, I do not see how having the book reviewed by sources makes it a notable book per WP:NB  nableezy  - 06:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are, and those books are notable. The very first point of WP:NB says: "The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." If you took the time to look at the sources found using that Google search you would see that this requirement is easily met--and the other naysayers should realize the same thing. To use your own words, which I can now put in the affirmative, "having the book reviewed by sources makes it a notable book per WP:NB." How would you argue that an entire chapter in an academic book published by Rodopi Publishers does not count a reliable source? In fact, WP:BEFORE urges you to "make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." Well, they exist and I had no trouble finding them. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually saw those reviews, thought they fell under trivial works. If that is not the case I have no problem withdrawing the AfD.  nableezy  - 07:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems to be that the sources found by Drmies speak for themselves in this article. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 01:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - definitely meets our notability criteria. Lady  of  Shalott  03:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as keep. Obviously meets notability guidelines. Bongo  matic  09:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly notable, and the article covers much more than a plot summary now. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:33, 15 July 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.