Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From pupulation control to reproductive health

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 and move to From Population Control to Reproductive Health. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From pupulation control to reproductive health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Was dePRODed. Concern was: Written like a personal book review. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, and yet consider WP:TNT. The article is in reprehensible condition, beginning right with the misspelled title. Needless to say, if kept, rename to From Population Control to Reproductive Health (with a redirect created that includes the subtitle). That said, this book has apparently received three separate reviews in peer-reviewed journals in the appropriate field, which is pretty much everything we want in evaluating notability for something of this nature.

• Bose, Ashish (2006). "Book Reviews: From Population Control to Reproductive Health: Malthusian Arithmetic, Mohan Rao (SAGE Publications, New Delhi) 2004" (PDF). Indian Journal of Medical Research. 124: 213–214.
• Padmadas, Sabu S. (2006). "Book review of: From Population Control to Reproductive Health: Malthusian Arithmetic by Mohan Rao". Population Studies. 60 (1): 116–118. doi:10.1080/00324720500466034.
• Simon-Kumar, Rachel (2005). "Reviewed Work: From Population Control to Reproductive Health: Malthusian Arithmetic by Mohan Rao". Social Scientist. 33 (3/4): 76–80. JSTOR 3518115.

It was also reviewed here in The Hindu, although obviously the scholarly sources are of greater weight for a book on medical topics, per WP:MEDRS. This is about the most-clearly-notable book I've ever commented about at AFD, but the content we have now is still startlingly poor. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but start over from scratch! Let's not move it until AfD is finished, WP:AFD. --Djembayz (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've done some basic clean-up. It would be good to see other editors work on this: in particular, the whole article currently seems to be just an overall outline of the book, citing the book itself as reference, and as no other sources are cited, it currently appears to fail the requirement for providing multiple independent reliable sources. Would it be possible to have some material added that cites the sources given above, and less emphasis on a point-by-point summary of the book? (Also: for those looking for the book itself, it'sISBN 9780761932697 ). -- The Anome (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've now chopped out 90% of the article to keep only the very basics, and cited the first and last of the sources above. The second appears to be behind a paywall, so I don't have access to it. Even now, there is still uncited material in the article: it would be good if other editors could contribute to the cleanup. -- The Anome (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Whatever happens with this article, copyediting is unlikely to be needed. I removed the tag.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Given the sources available (including those linked above), it seems consensus for notability already exists. With the work done to it since nomination, WP:TNT isn't necessary. It does certainly need to be renamed, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:19, 31 August 2015 (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.