Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Vivekananda in the West: New Discoveries

(non-admin closure) 
 * 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. Dipankan ( Have a chat? ) 10:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Swami Vivekananda in the West: New Discoveries

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Apparently non-notable book. No signs of wider impact or independent critical coverage. No independent sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * hm, this book is non-notable? search in Google books etc! BTW, actually it is series of books (6 books), not a single book!--Tito Dutta Message 09:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. "There is a vast literature on Vivekananda, most of it written from an uncritical devotional perspective. See, for example, Marie L. Burke, Swami Vivekananda..." That's more or less the only independent, non-trivial reference discussing the book that I can find. It's a devastating reference, and even that is only in passing in a footnote. Fut.Perf. ☼, 09:40, 21 April 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Keep Well I can see sources out there - See this, and this. Hindu is considered as a reliable source. Pretty tis' to be kept. Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 10:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough, it was a long due. -- ɑηsuмaη  ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 10:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep it's notable. Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A mere assertion of "it's notable" isn't a valid argument in a deletion debate and will be discounted. You need to demonstrate there is notability, in terms of multiple, substantial, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Non-trivial coverage of the book as such, not just reports mentioning its author, and also not simply passages in books routinely using it as a reference. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Start with a search in Google books, --Tito Dutta Message 00:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And where in that do you find independent, non-trivial coverage? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: The book may be not well notable in the world of Internet, but the Google Books search is a proof for its notability. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:01, 30 April 2012 (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.