Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sensible Sensuality

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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible Sensuality

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:Notability (books) Dlabtot (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looking at the size of the article and the list of reliable print sources, why do you think that it fails WP:BK? Joe Chill (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because, 1, the book has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, 2, the book has not won a major literary award, 3, the book has not been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement, 4,. the book is not the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country, and 5, the book's author is not so historically significant that any of her written works may be considered notable.

The size of the article is irrelevant to the notability of the topic. The list of sources does not include a single reliable source on the subject of the article, the book Sensible Sensuality, rather, all of the sources are about the author, Sarojini Sahoo. And some of those are sketchy as well. For example the about.com article that is deceptively labeled as coming from the New York Times. Dlabtot (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete. Thanks for explaining your stance. I never said that length equaled notability anyway. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to imply that you did. Since you mentioned it, I felt like I had to in my reply, as well. Dlabtot (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a book which will help to understand Eastern Feminism. I think, deletion of this article will not serve any purpose.Kanu786 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. a paragraph or so mention in the authors article should be enough for now. until her article is reliably sourced, and then only if she is shown to be historically important (#5 above), could we have a smaller article on the book. i dont think this book has its own article at the indian language (which?) wikipedia.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per WP:BEFORE #4. The multiple main links to Sarojini Sahoo in the article make it obvious that a merge is what needs to happen here. --Kvng (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right then, so you mean merge, not keep. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google books yields zero results. Normal google search shows nothing that great either. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.