Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fine Print and Other Yarns


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 22:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The Fine Print and Other Yarns

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non Notable book Uncletomwood (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article claims that the book received a writeup in several major newspapers, however the only one I could find was The Sunday Tribune. The way that the article is phrased doesn't give up much hope that the mentions are substantial, given that it says that the papers only reported the book's release - meaning that they could have easily been a 1-2 sentence statement or a reprint of a press release. Barring those sources becoming available, I have to assume that they're WP:TRIVIAL coverage - especially given the statement "However, apart from this preliminary coverage, the Press has generally given the book a short shrift and there has not been any detailed review in any newspaper or journal. " I tried finding them in the WP:India search engine, but nothing came up with that other than the Tribune source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for now for failing WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. I tried about half-an-hour but couldn't find any sources other than the one cited in the article and linked in above comment. There are few offline sources though from mainstream media but I don't really know what kind of coverage is in there. The author of article mentioned that, ...there has not been any detailed review in any newspaper or journal. and in the absence of accessibility, I'd stick to that opinion. Anup   [Talk]  18:12, 2 November 2016 (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.