Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manush Mashrafe (book)


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Manush Mashrafe (book)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NBOOK (all of criteria). Fails WP:RS, 2nd source is about book selling (promotional report ) & then all of source are from book selling site. Also book author doesn't have his own article (non notable author). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

*Risingbd.com Bangladeshi verified news website published that this book was published in  Ekushey Book Fair then this is yet not notable?? And this book about Mashrafe Mortaza.you can not write any book about him without his permission. So this is enough notable. For author notability concern, tell any bengali admin that create a article about him. He is a writter and enough source have on internet to write a article about author. And for the promotional site you talking go and check many of notable writter article have this site. And rokomari is a book library you can also read the demo of the book. There have many articles which is unsourced/without source/poorly source, Pleas remove first! Don’t finish my interest to wirte articles next time. Thanks, your decision whatever you do -Rasi56 (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So instead of adding a further reading section at Mashrafe Mortaza containing citations for book biographies, you decided to create an individual article per book, sourcing them (as here) to on-line shopping and advertisements. That was not a good editorial decision.  Uncle G (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There have verified news portal which was published news about this book. And concern about online shop,I just gave to admin can see the isbn number. And I know that promotional link is not suitable for Wikipedia,it will remove. And If promotional link remove, I Don't bother but I Strongly keep that this book is enough notable to be here! Rasi56 (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you are not applying notability. Notability is not fame nor importance.  It is whether there is enough objective, proper, in-depth documentation of a subject to support a non-permastub article.  If there isn't then one is putting things into the encyclopaedia wrongly to give such things individual articles.  In this case, you have a few biography books of a person, and a biographical article for that person that does not cite any book-length biographies at all.  The idea of citing the book biographies as further reading seems obvious, not writing individual permastub articles about the books that readers of the biographical article will never find.  (Note that the novels are not covered by this, as they do not constitute factual resources.  Note also that I am assuming that said biographies are decent informational resources about the person whose biography they are.)  To have individual articles about the books, the books themselves must be documented in depth.  (This goes for the novels, too.)  Uncle G (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This book “got zero significant coverage”. This book has no review from reliable and independent third party source. The Source you mention is a promotional source. this source literally gives you book price, address of book stall for buying. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

disagree, there have thousand of book publish but not all book published in verified website if the writter is not notable. this author is also drama director see links 1,2 his written book news 1, 2 is he not enough notable?? There have many Bengali writters who have no article in wikipedia and less media coverage but there book is popular in book lover and enough notable, so in this case there books are not notable per wiki guidelines?? Is the measurement of notability?? If any admin can not create the article about author it’s there fault not writterRasi56 (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC) this author is also drama director see links 1,2 his written book news 1, 2 is he not enough notable?? If you don’t understand please translate. There have news about his book and drama and you said that nothing found!! Rasi56 (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, proof of existence, publishing details (even by a notable/reputable publisher), press releases/announcements are not enough, what is needed (amongst other things) are reviews from independent sources, in this case, these do not appear to be available. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The cited announcement falls far short of satisfying WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Searches of the usual Google types, including by Bengali script name and author, found nothing to suggest notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It is much harder to show that a book is notable than you think. I've seen books turned down despite having five substantial reviews in reliable sources. At Articles for deletion, it took a hard fight in a discussion with wide participation to keep even one with six reviews in The Times (London), The New York Review of Books, The Times Literary Supplement, The New York Times, The Economist, and the Providence Journal.
 * To count towards demonstrating notability, reviews need to be full-length and by professional reviewers. Think 1,500 words by Michiko Kakutani of The New York Times. Reviews should describe such things as the book's target audience, organization, style, themes, and tone. They should provide background, compare and contrast it with other works, bolster or refute arguments in it, and give an informed opinion of it. Short "capsule" reviews, or publicity in connection with a book tour (or book fair, as in the case of the risingbd piece you cite), are worthless for notability.
 * The other sources you've linked have nothing to do with the notability of the book. If an author is notable, that doesn't make a book by him notable.
 * Starting new articles on non-notable subjects is creating a big mess that other editors have to clean up. If English is not your first language, you may find it difficult to contribute constructively through new articles. There are many other important tasks in Wikipedia that can be accomplished with less fluency. If your interest is cricket, see this cleanup list of thousands of identified problems in existing cricket articles that need fixing, or see WikiProject Cricket for other ways to help. Alternatively, you might be more comfortable contributing to a different language version of Wikipedia, such as the Bengali one. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2019 (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.