Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compass Box Killer

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. Sandstein 17:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compass Box Killer

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

insufficient evidence for notability.Film reviews in Indian news sources are unreliable for the purposes of notability DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Note this is not an argument that the article should be kept) DGG, perhaps you meant book reviews, instead of film reviews, since this is a book not a film. Also, why are Indian news sources unreliable for the purposes of notability? Point 1 of wp:NBOOK specifically includes reviews in its list of published works that support notability, so your objection must be to the fact that the reviews are in Indian news sources; but where else would such reviews appear? What makes Indian sources inherently less reliable than sources from other countries? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This should be covered by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raakshas: India's No 1 Serial Killer, which was a bundled nomination, and should be a candidate for G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

my error---I know that film reviews in Indian sources are unreliable; I however have less knowledge wheather or not their of book reviewing is true third party independent.

but for books published in the US, which I do know about, the question about whether a book review shows notability is usually whether it is actually independent, and whether it is substantial. For example reviews that are just mentions in a list of new book with a sentence about each are not substantial, just as similar sources would not be in any other field. Reviews arranging by the publishers PR dept are not independent. There's often a good deal of dispute in individual cases whether a particular book review qualifies or not. One of the factors that I would consider showing a failure of independence is any book review that seems to be by a paid editor,. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - G5. All edits since aren't substantial, consisting of only gnoming edits. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:46, 2 January 2019 (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.