Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramkinkar Baij (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 merge to Ramkinkar Baij.  Sandstein  14:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ramkinkar Baij (book)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is an article about a biographical book. The book's author is notable, and so is the subject of the book, and both have their own Wikipedia articles. The book itself doesn't seem notable to me, any more than any other decent biography of an artist, and the information in this article would much better be merged into the author or subject's articles. The article was PRODded in 2014, but prod removed without explanation, hence bringing it here. Elemimele (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  13:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I expected to !vote delete, because I can't get any of the sources linked in the article to work for me, and art books for exhibitions strike me as the kind of publication that do not often get the coverage for WP:NBOOK. It was also challenging to filter out coverage of the people and the exhibition. But to my surprise I did find a book review in The Telegraph (India), 620 words, which is quite long! So if just one more review or other in-depth coverage can be found, that would be a clear keep. A case could be made that the second NBOOK source could be this substantial interview with the author about the book, though interviews are not that independent. (This sort of thing strikes me as better than a blog post because the interviewer and the publication both do some "filtering", but not as clear-cut as a review.) The only other thing I turned up was the definitely trivial coverage in this review of the exhibition which mentions "texts by R Siva Kumar and KG Subrzamanyan, both of whose publications on Baij are part of the retrospective." So I don't think an NBOOK pass has been proven. But I do think it's unexpectedly likely that a second source would exist, especially if the award mentioned in the article can be verified, and therefore I lean keep. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I don't doubt that the author and the painter are both beyond question notable. The review is definitely a start. But since the book was the catalogue of a major exhibition, it's not surprising that reviews exist (that's part of the publicity of such things), and my feeling remains that the book is notable because of its author and subject, not as itself, and it's therefore best handled in the articles about the painter and the author. I note, too, that although information about the book is included in Ramkinkar_Baij (which more-or-less duplicates everything in the book's article) it's only in the Legacy section, and the book itself is not cited as a source at any stage. If this book is s very notable as the definitive source about the painter, I would expect it to be a well-cited reference? Elemimele (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge or redirect No basis for aseparate artcle. It's the vcatalog of a single exhibition of a single artist, and the notability is derivative.  DGG' ( talk ) 06:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with R. Siva Kumar per DGG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2022 (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.