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. The issue is whether this book has sufficient coverage for notability. While the "keep" side has proposed references to that effect, the "delete" side has argued that they do not provide significant coverage of the book, but merely mention or cite it. And, crucially, the "keep" side has not addressed these counterarguments, which leads me to give their views less weight. Sandstein 08:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Currently the sources are insufficient to establish the book as notable per
WP:NBOOK. The sources cited are:
[1], an ebook version of the text;
[2], which is supposed to be a bibliography, but the bibliography does not appear on that page;
[3], a list of books (including this book) which were being offered for sale in 1997; and
[4], a domain which is now for sale and has no relevant content. --
Metropolitan90(talk)20:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete The article is totally unreferenced.
Metropolitan90 already has described above one working external link that does not even address the above article's subject and is irrelevant here. The other external links are dead.
Ngrewal1 (
talk)
21:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep -- The article refers to several reprints and academic citations. This is sufficient to make it notable. The events of Idian partition are an unpleasant subject, which some may wish to hide from.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as the onus of demonstrating notability lies on those who wish to keep the article and thus far has not been demonstrated. The article currently doesn't have a single reference.VRtalk19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, the book is not reviewed anywhere that I can find; but it is cited, in mostly trivial ways, a few times when searched for using google scholar:[1]Hardyplants (
talk)
19:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I find this Article Title somewhat confusing? No pre-independence political parties –
Indian National Congress party,
All-India Muslim League shamelessly ordered or endorsed, as far as I know, any attacks based on people's religions, which I think this article title implies - on literally reading it. However, we all know people of all three religions in the Punjab attacked each other and tragically countless lives were lost. Existing Wikipedia main article
Partition of India in 1947 already covers it. I hope and suggest that we don't start this 'blame game' all over again and further open up old wounds.
Ngrewal1 (
talk)
01:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment The book passes multiple criteria of
WP:NBOOK. Cataloged by
National library of Australia,
[7] and also Worldcat.
[8] It has been also cited as a detailed reliable source by multiple scholarly sources:
Gyanendra Pandey; Professor of History Gyanendra Pandey (22 November 2001).
Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism and History in India. Cambridge University Press. p. 86.
ISBN978-0-521-00250-9. A Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) report on the 'Muslim League' attack on Sikhs and Hindus in 1947, published in 1950, was equally ardent in its acclaim of the 'epic resistance' offered by Sikh men and women in village after village throughout Punjab.
Farahnaz Ispahani (2017).
Purifying the Land of the Pure: A History of Pakistan's Religious Minorities. Oxford University Press. pp. 16–.
ISBN978-0-19-062165-0. ....information collated by a Sikh religious organization, the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC), in a 453-page book, Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947, indicates "that the main Muslim communal party, the Muslim League, wanted the whole of Punjab and therefore planned the expulsion by all means of Sikhs and Hindus from the areas that were assigned to Pakistan...
Both sources above give the book only sentence of coverage. A single sentence of coverage does not count as "non-trivial coverage" as required by
WP:BKCRIT. And neither of them even mention the author of the book. Cataloging is an exclusionary criterion (meaning not all catalogued books merit an article). Finally, the author of the book,
Gurbachan Singh Talib, is barely notable himself. He is definitely not "of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study".VRtalk20:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete None of the criteria of
WP:BOOKCRIT is meeting here. All books written by a notable person do not automatically become notable by inheritance. Excerpts and mentions only prove that the book exists and this is not a hoax article, these links by themselves do not prove notability. The notability bar has been set higher as we cannot have article on every book that gets a mention online. I have spent some time and diligently gone through each and every link/refs provided above, those in the article and through my own searches.
Walrus Ji (
talk)
20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)reply
[5] and [6] are passing mentions to this book.
Catalogue of a library does not make it notable.
Pandey's book is a passing mention of the book where it gets cited once in a paragraph.
Ispahani book is a passing mention of the book where it gets cited once in a paragraph.
A notable book will have enough reviews and mentions so that enough material will be available to write a Wikipedia article on the same. This is not the case here, only passing mentions were found. Apart from a couple of lines, there is nothing to write in the article of the book. The lack of critical review by noted scholars is itself a big giveaway that this is not a notable book.
Walrus Ji (
talk)
20:11, 24 December 2020 (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.
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. The issue is whether this book has sufficient coverage for notability. While the "keep" side has proposed references to that effect, the "delete" side has argued that they do not provide significant coverage of the book, but merely mention or cite it. And, crucially, the "keep" side has not addressed these counterarguments, which leads me to give their views less weight. Sandstein 08:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Currently the sources are insufficient to establish the book as notable per
WP:NBOOK. The sources cited are:
[1], an ebook version of the text;
[2], which is supposed to be a bibliography, but the bibliography does not appear on that page;
[3], a list of books (including this book) which were being offered for sale in 1997; and
[4], a domain which is now for sale and has no relevant content. --
Metropolitan90(talk)20:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete The article is totally unreferenced.
Metropolitan90 already has described above one working external link that does not even address the above article's subject and is irrelevant here. The other external links are dead.
Ngrewal1 (
talk)
21:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep -- The article refers to several reprints and academic citations. This is sufficient to make it notable. The events of Idian partition are an unpleasant subject, which some may wish to hide from.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as the onus of demonstrating notability lies on those who wish to keep the article and thus far has not been demonstrated. The article currently doesn't have a single reference.VRtalk19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, the book is not reviewed anywhere that I can find; but it is cited, in mostly trivial ways, a few times when searched for using google scholar:[1]Hardyplants (
talk)
19:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I find this Article Title somewhat confusing? No pre-independence political parties –
Indian National Congress party,
All-India Muslim League shamelessly ordered or endorsed, as far as I know, any attacks based on people's religions, which I think this article title implies - on literally reading it. However, we all know people of all three religions in the Punjab attacked each other and tragically countless lives were lost. Existing Wikipedia main article
Partition of India in 1947 already covers it. I hope and suggest that we don't start this 'blame game' all over again and further open up old wounds.
Ngrewal1 (
talk)
01:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment The book passes multiple criteria of
WP:NBOOK. Cataloged by
National library of Australia,
[7] and also Worldcat.
[8] It has been also cited as a detailed reliable source by multiple scholarly sources:
Gyanendra Pandey; Professor of History Gyanendra Pandey (22 November 2001).
Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism and History in India. Cambridge University Press. p. 86.
ISBN978-0-521-00250-9. A Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) report on the 'Muslim League' attack on Sikhs and Hindus in 1947, published in 1950, was equally ardent in its acclaim of the 'epic resistance' offered by Sikh men and women in village after village throughout Punjab.
Farahnaz Ispahani (2017).
Purifying the Land of the Pure: A History of Pakistan's Religious Minorities. Oxford University Press. pp. 16–.
ISBN978-0-19-062165-0. ....information collated by a Sikh religious organization, the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC), in a 453-page book, Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947, indicates "that the main Muslim communal party, the Muslim League, wanted the whole of Punjab and therefore planned the expulsion by all means of Sikhs and Hindus from the areas that were assigned to Pakistan...
Both sources above give the book only sentence of coverage. A single sentence of coverage does not count as "non-trivial coverage" as required by
WP:BKCRIT. And neither of them even mention the author of the book. Cataloging is an exclusionary criterion (meaning not all catalogued books merit an article). Finally, the author of the book,
Gurbachan Singh Talib, is barely notable himself. He is definitely not "of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study".VRtalk20:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete None of the criteria of
WP:BOOKCRIT is meeting here. All books written by a notable person do not automatically become notable by inheritance. Excerpts and mentions only prove that the book exists and this is not a hoax article, these links by themselves do not prove notability. The notability bar has been set higher as we cannot have article on every book that gets a mention online. I have spent some time and diligently gone through each and every link/refs provided above, those in the article and through my own searches.
Walrus Ji (
talk)
20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)reply
[5] and [6] are passing mentions to this book.
Catalogue of a library does not make it notable.
Pandey's book is a passing mention of the book where it gets cited once in a paragraph.
Ispahani book is a passing mention of the book where it gets cited once in a paragraph.
A notable book will have enough reviews and mentions so that enough material will be available to write a Wikipedia article on the same. This is not the case here, only passing mentions were found. Apart from a couple of lines, there is nothing to write in the article of the book. The lack of critical review by noted scholars is itself a big giveaway that this is not a notable book.
Walrus Ji (
talk)
20:11, 24 December 2020 (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.