Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Book of Records


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

World Book of Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not believe this book meets WP:NBOOK as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources.

It seems to me to be a bogus or insubstantial entity, see this article from the Huffington Post, and not something Wikipedia should be endorsing by inclusion. Despite being called "World book of records", all the quoted records are from India.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not a bogus or insubstantial entity. Please go through all the referenced material about it. There are lot of independent sources. Yes, Huffington Post has carried out a story but it is just one of its kind which they have published, there is no such story elsewhere. While creating the page, I went through the organization's website and social media in which they have initiated a legal action against that news portal. Other than lot of credible independent references, the organization has been endorsed by lot of influential people including the Prime Minister of India. Request you to go through all the references and take the decision accordingly. Also, I suggest for any conflict, we should have used the Talk page to reach on some consensus rather than nominating a properly referenced material for deletion. Thank you! Edwige9 (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. None of the sources are about the book. Rather, they mention an entry in the book to try to help show the importance of the event, like a political rally, that the article is actually about. It thus fails the GNG requirement to ...address the topic directly and in detail.... There is a strong hint of promotion in all this, which should not be so surprising since the book's founder has stated the book is a vehicle for his own political ambitions. SpinningSpark 15:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Yes, it is not a Book but a brand substantially covered in the press and media. All the sources cited about it are the awards that it has given. However, more content about the subject is required and not deletion of the page. Rudra9 (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/mega-bjp-convention-in-bhopal-enters-world-book-of-records/articleshow/65967021.cms https://www.indiatoday.in/television/top-stories/story/comedy-king-kapil-sharma-gets-honoured-by-world-book-of-records-london-1527154-2019-05-17 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/daler-mahndi-nominated-as-the-brand-ambassador-of-world-book-of-records/articleshow/69268738.cms As far as notability is concerned, so many Indian news portals have covered the subject and renowned Indian pop singer Daler Mehndi is its brand ambassador. Also, World Book of Records is the name of the organization, although their site has mentioned that they publish a book as well. So, in my opinion, the argument on notability is not correct. Request everyone to relook at my case. Edwige9 (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete at this point I agree with the nominator and with Spinning spark's assessment.  Lubbad85   (☎) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * DELETE - I don't see anything about the org either in the references, through a search, or, FWIW in the article. It's really just a list of entries combined with WP:PROMO. There's nothing that indicates objectivity regarding the honours or records and zero WP:ORGDEPTH in any of the sources. It's a quirky list though and kind of interesting in how it sort of borrows most of the Guiness name and locates itself in the UK, presumably to give itself an overseas veneer. ogenstein (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand everyone has an opinion on this subject but there are other pages within similar domain that do not have enough references. E.g. India Book of Records and Asia Book of Records. If you compare this page's references with the other two that I have posted, you will find that this page not only has more but better references. I feel it should not be deleted but more references and content can be added to improve it. :All the content that has been added on the page has been referenced properly. Here are the three sample references:
 * Pointing to other articles is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, which does not cut the mustard here. Maybe they should be deleted as well, we are discussing this article only.  The references you cite are passing mentions, despite being in a headline. SpinningSpark 08:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't mean WP:OTHERSTUFF. Before creating this page, I searched for similar pages in this domain. The reason why i pointed out to these pages is that i was confused why they are notable and not mine. Anyway, whatever the community decides. Edwige9 (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the kind of reasoning that OTHERSTUFF describes. Did you even read it? You are confused in thinking that those other pages are notable because they exist. That is only established after they have been through some kind of review, which most pages on Wikipedia have not.  In fact, the first one you link is possibly a candidate for speedy deletion since it has previously been deleted at AFD. Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 09:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay got it! So, is there a way to retain this page by improving it? I mean there are lot of references but only one carries the information about the organization. The other references mention the awards it has given and the people associated with it. All of them are renowned, but this doesn't make the page notable, right? Edwige9 (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, does not meet WP:ORG, not enough significant coverage available, other similar wikiarticles not relevant. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, after having another look at the two articles mentioned above, agree they may be similar to this one, have added notability concern tags to them. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2019 (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.