Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gurkha's Daughter


 * 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, clearly passes WP:GNG as a number of reviews in major media were found.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The_Gurkha's_Daughter
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This book has been shortlisted for a prize, and received some favorable press. So have many others, however, and not all of them are deserving of their own Wikipedia page. I would opt for deletion for lack of notability. Shurjoroi (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. It received lengthy reviews from two major Indian newspapers and is shortlisted for the Dylan Thomas Prize. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, but I still fail to see how a shortlisted book (for an award it did not win) ought to have its own page. Notability_(books) mentions winning a major prize (like the Man Booker Award or the like) as a criterion. Otherwise Wikipedia would be teeming with articles on books shortlisted for various competitions. I'm not saying the book is necessarily bad, just that it's not notable enough for its own page, that's all. Take Nilanjana Roy's "The Wildings": it won the Shakti Bhatt and got loads of good press, but it doesn't have its own Wikipedia page. I'm still for delete.--Shurjoroi (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that it got substantial reviews is the main point. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST isn't a viable argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I could've explained myself better. My concern is with the fact that, the book having been published by a big publisher, it is bound to get reviews in major newspapers. This is often part of a publisher's marketing strategy. So I was concerned about ensuring greater independence by giving greater weight to awards (or lack thereof), so as to steer clear of WP:SPIP. I would, however, welcome more contributions to this discussion, to see whether a consensus can begin to emerge.--Shurjoroi (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know about India, but in North America, being put out by a big publisher doesn't automatically get you a long review. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

How about merging with Prajwal Parajuly? Having looked at other literature-based AfD debates, it would seem a bit excessive to remove the page as such. On the other hand, given that the author is notable for writing this particular book, it might make more sense to merge the two articles?--Grasshopper6 (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Reviews by The Guardian, Mint . Redtigerxyz  Talk 15:48, 12 April 2014 (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.