Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Source Book
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[]
- Open Source Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no indication of notability. Disputed prod - only primary sources given. Google searches not finding anything significant. noq (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[]
- delete per nom; googling title and author's last name brings up only the author's linked-in page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[]
- I want to change the title to "Open Source Book: decoding dominant web-technologies" as it is more appropriate so may I do so now or wait until discussion is going on?--Sumit8158 (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[]
- There is a reference in Hindi at prominent VVIP website from India www.bhartavarsh.asia at http://bharatvarsh.asia/2009/10/31/%E0%A4%93%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%A8-%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B8-%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%95/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.249.60 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[]
- While I do not read Hindi (or do I? Let me look at that again... nope!) I should note that simply looking at that link, it's too brief to be anything more than a passing mention, and not the sort of deep coverage that the notability guidelines call for, no matter how prominent the site (and I'm not judging its prominence, because unless something has changed in the last 20 seconds, I still don't read Hindi.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[]
- Delete: I found no independent coverage. Interestingly, Google Books seems to be unaware of it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[]
- Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. The sources in the article are not reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[]
- Delete Clearly fails the general notability guideline. Steven Walling • talk 00:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[]
- 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.