Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constructing Post-Colonial India

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Constructing Post-Colonial India

[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)

fails NBOOK, non-notable book by a barely notable author MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NBOOK by being multiply reviewed (and more than the one or two reviews that might be typical for a volume in this field). I have not tried to do an extensive evaluation of the author's wiki-notability, but with multiple reviews for this book, for an edited volume [1][2], and for a co-authored book [3][4], he may pass WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple reviews in reliable sources now added to the article so that it clearly passes WP:GNG and deletion is not necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article contains references to 3 reviews from peer-reviewed journals (possibly 4, not familiar with Jouvert) and a review from The Telegraph (a reputable national newspaper). Meets NBOOK#1: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.". --Goldsztajn (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:BOOKCRIT/WP:GNG. On a side note, at least one of his other works – namely Sexuality Studies – is also notable: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. And other than these two books, his other works have also been reviewed, e.g. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], etc. So, it is notable book of a notable scholar. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 11:34, 17 May 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.