Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wisdom Bridge

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 redirect‎ to Kamlesh Patel (Daaji)#Books. Consensus is against keeping this article, and no valid argument against a redirect as an ATD. Owen× ☎ 10:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wisdom Bridge

[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)

Only one source listed is an actual review/has outside commentary and what seems to be independence. I was unable to find anything else. A lot of the sources fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA which further confuses matters. Redirect to Kamlesh Patel (Daaji)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I contest this as the article as sufficient references as suggested per Wikipedia Policies for a book. The article has also been reviewed by other editors.Gardenkur (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references are press-release tier material which per NBOOK do not count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references are promo, paid coverage, wire stories, etc. I started clearing out the worst offenders to see if there was anything hiding in there, but it's just a WP:REFBOMB. If I cut all the not-qualifying coverage there won't be anything left. -- asilvering (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Although a lot of sources have been removed from this article since its nomination, a source review or current references would be helpful to see if WP:NBOOK is met as one editor is arguing (in a roundabout way).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis for the fns in this version:

short wire article; looks like paid coverage
not independent (by author of book)
not independent (by author of book)
has a byline, not short, not in an obvious ads-only section; the best source in the article at present, but it's still not... great
not independent (by author of book)
basically a celebrity endorsement? really don't think this is fully independent
no byline, obvious marketing copy
no byline, obvious marketing copy + promo excerpt
not sigcov

-- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, asilvering. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kamlesh Patel (Daaji)#Books (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cunard,Liz and asilvering.If voting is the way to retain or remove the articles from Wikipedia,than Wikipedia should not have any guidelines. Than all the articles can be put for voting and the editors will remove the articles. This is a very bad precedent which can spoil the credibility of Wikipedia.Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I will switch to supporting retention if two independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the book can be found. This would establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cunard. Thanks for your reply. Could you consider some of the below links:

I request Cunard,Liz and asilvering to consider the above coverage in secondary sources and guide accordingly. We need to work on keeping the neutrality of Wikipedia platform than denouncing a particular subject on voting basis.thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing these sources. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Paid reporting in Indian news organizations is something I keep in mind when reviewing sources from Indian news organizations. As this is not an area where I'm experienced in, I'd like other editors to share their opinions on these sources. Cunard (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur, most of these are the sources I've already analyzed in my earlier comment. -- asilvering (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilvering. Thanks for your reply. I have requested maintaining the article based on Wikipedia guidelines for references. I think the article meets the criteria. I have an interest in Wikipedia platform and not working for any other reason.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2024 (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.