Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Krishna Key

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Krishna Key

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

There are no secondary sources at all and I couldn't find any to establish any notability. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability_(books) (I would be happy to be proven wrong.) heather walls (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the artice and can assure you that it should not be deleted. Yes, I agree with your points. But, we need to further expand the article. I will add some references, so that, even if I can't find time to expand it, other fellow Wikipedians can. I have read Wikipedia:Notability_(books). I am sure that we can achieve the required standards. Thanks. P.S. Do tell me, if I have to remove any tags from my page. I am a new Wikipedian and thus unfamiliar with some of the things. Thanks again. Kanungoparth (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I have made a lot of changes to the page. and have added loads of content. I think that the page satisfies Wikipedia:Notability_(books) point No. 5, which says, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." My suggestion: Keep and improve Thanks.

Kanungoparth (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup of the article. Much of the article used sources that aren't considered to be reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines, being a lot of primary sources and things that didn't really mention the book at all. I found an article from the Dainik Bhaskar, but I think that there might be more sources in non-English places. Kanungoparth, do you speak any of the languages that are spoken in India? I don't want to be presumptuous and assume from your name that you're a native speaker. We can use foreign language sources as long as they pass RS, so if you like you can post non-English sources here or on the article's talk page and we can go through them. It just feels like there's more out there but not in English.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The novel is widely discussed in print media (in India) and the novel has drawn attention of younger readers in India. Needs more citations from reliable sources. Rayabhari (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has two+ reliable independent sources that discuss the book in a non-trivial manner. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2012 (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.