Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947


 * 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. The issue is whether this book has sufficient coverage for notability. While the "keep" side has proposed references to that effect, the "delete" side has argued that they do not provide significant coverage of the book, but merely mention or cite it. And, crucially, the "keep" side has not addressed these counterarguments, which leads me to give their views less weight.  Sandstein  08:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I cannot find sufficient coverage in reliable sources for this to meet the basic threshold for notability. Auxentios (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Currently the sources are insufficient to establish the book as notable per WP:NBOOK. The sources cited are:, an ebook version of the text; , which is supposed to be a bibliography, but the bibliography does not appear on that page; , a list of books (including this book) which were being offered for sale in 1997; and , a domain which is now for sale and has no relevant content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is totally unreferenced. Metropolitan90 already has described above one working external link that does not even address the above article's subject and is irrelevant here. The other external links are dead. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Entirely meets WP:N and WP:NBOOK. Significant coverage in independent scholarly literature is easily accessible too. The nomination makes no sense. Azuredivay (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither of those links give the book "significant coverage". Both of those simply cite from the book and that is not enough to meet the WP:N or WP:NBOOK guidelines.VR talk 19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per Azuredivay. Abhi88iisc (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The article refers to several reprints and academic citations. This is sufficient to make it notable.  The events of Idian partition are an unpleasant subject, which some may wish to hide from.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * the article doesn't have a single reference or citation.VR talk 19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as the onus of demonstrating notability lies on those who wish to keep the article and thus far has not been demonstrated. The article currently doesn't have a single reference.VR talk 19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, the book is not reviewed anywhere that I can find; but it is cited, in mostly trivial ways, a few times when searched for using google scholar: Hardyplants (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I find this Article Title somewhat confusing? No pre-independence political parties – Indian National Congress party, All-India Muslim League shamelessly ordered or endorsed, as far as I know, any attacks based on people's religions, which I think this article title implies - on literally reading it. However, we all know people of all three religions in the Punjab attacked each other and tragically countless lives were lost. Existing Wikipedia main article Partition of India in 1947 already covers it. I hope and suggest that we don't start this 'blame game' all over again and further open up old wounds. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article title is literally the title of the book that this article is about. If the article is kept but the title seems problematic, the article could be moved to Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947 (book) to distinguish the book title from a characterization of the event. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The book passes multiple criteria of WP:NBOOK. Cataloged by National library of Australia, and also Worldcat. It has been also cited as a detailed reliable source by multiple scholarly sources:
 * The author is notable as well. Azuredivay (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are completely misunderstanding WP:NBOOK.
 * Both sources above give the book only sentence of coverage. A single sentence of coverage does not count as "non-trivial coverage" as required by WP:BKCRIT. And neither of them even mention the author of the book. Cataloging is an exclusionary criterion (meaning not all catalogued books merit an article). Finally, the author of the book, Gurbachan Singh Talib, is barely notable himself. He is definitely not "of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study".VR talk 20:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are completely misunderstanding WP:NBOOK.
 * Both sources above give the book only sentence of coverage. A single sentence of coverage does not count as "non-trivial coverage" as required by WP:BKCRIT. And neither of them even mention the author of the book. Cataloging is an exclusionary criterion (meaning not all catalogued books merit an article). Finally, the author of the book, Gurbachan Singh Talib, is barely notable himself. He is definitely not "of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study".VR talk</b> 20:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The book is undoubtedly notable as mentioned by the sources. If you don't like how the article is written then just WP:FIXIT. What happened to WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP? Shankargb (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A single sentence of coverage does not grant a book notability.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 20:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination was a failure of WP:BEFORE as the subject meets WP:NBOOK. Eliko007 (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Azuredivay.Note this a 1950 book and sources will be offline.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT is meeting here. All books written by a notable person do not automatically become notable by inheritance. Excerpts and mentions only prove that the book exists and this is not a hoax article, these links by themselves do not prove notability. The notability bar has been set higher as we cannot have article on every book that gets a mention online. I have spent some time and diligently gone through each and every link/refs provided above, those in the article and through my own searches. Walrus Ji (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * [5] and [6] are passing mentions to this book.
 * Catalogue of a library does not make it notable.
 * Pandey's book is a passing mention of the book where it gets cited once in a paragraph.
 * Ispahani book is a passing mention of the book where it gets cited once in a paragraph.
 * A notable book will have enough reviews and mentions so that enough material will be available to write a Wikipedia article on the same. This is not the case here, only passing mentions were found. Apart from a couple of lines, there is nothing to write in the article of the book. The lack of critical review by noted scholars is itself a big giveaway that this is not a notable book. Walrus Ji (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete in tunes with Walrusji. The book does not deserve an independent entry. The concept is subset of partition riots.TrangaBellam (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BK. LearnIndology (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.