Gandhi Under Cross Examination: Ratnahastin ( talk ) 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft keep .  I can find two independent sources covering this book: this Vice article and this review in the journal Encounter .  (I can find no evidence that the article "New Book Shreds Fabrication of Indian Civil Rights Icon" cited in the book's page actually exists.)  Coverage from two independent sources is enough per WP:NBOOK .  The journal Encounter does not appear to be very notable, lacking a Wikipedia article.  The review's author Rufus Burrow, Jr. seems to be semi-notable but also lacks a Wikipedia article.  Astaire ( talk ) 22:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Astaire.  And per the cover image, Hillary v. Gandhi, Obama, et al .  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 22:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Two sources have been provided above but Vice is an unreliable source for notability.  Garbage books that are written specifically for getting attention should attract coverage from just 2 sources.  If this book was published today it would be best fact checked on a fact checking website and we wont count it as coverage towards notability.  ArvindPalaskar ( talk ) 03:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Vice is "no consensus", not unreliable for the purposes of notability , and IMO this article doesn't fall into Vice's typical pitfalls so it is probably fine.  Encounter looks like a decent journal.  My issue is the Vice article is an interview - though it does have commentary on the book outside of that, so... eh?  I was able to verify the "Book Shreds Fabrication of Indian Civil Rights Icon" source exists and what it said but it is a press release and doesn't count for notability.  Even fringe books get reviewed, so that's not a guarantee.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 08:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Since there is no consensus over the reliability of Vice, it cannot be used for establishing notability at all.  The source has to be undoubtedly reliable.  I agree that the Vice source is insufficient even if the website was a reliable source.  ArvindPalaskar ( talk ) 08:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete , no coverage is secondary reliable sources, vice and semi-reliable journal don't prove the book's notability.  Artem.G ( talk ) 11:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Not enough coverage, there is just 1 dubious source and 1 semi-reliable source.  NavjotSR ( talk ) 07:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.  This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.  This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.  Sources "Gandhi Under Cross Examination book review".  Humanism Ireland .  November–December 2009.  pp. 22–23.  This book verifies that Humanism Ireland reviewed the book: "638. "Gandhi Under Cross-Examination," book review, Humanism Ireland , Nov/Dec 2009, pp. 22–23".  Burrow, Jr., Rufus (Fall 2009).  "Gandhi Under Cross-Examination".  Encounter .  Vol.  70, no. 4.  Christian Theological Seminary .  pp. 61–72.  ProQuest 216773616 .  According to this link : Christian Theological Seminary has published Encounter: A Journal of Theological Scholarship continuously since 1940.  In each of three annual issues, the journal offers scholarly articles, sermons, and reviews of recently published monographs.  Encounter is a peer-reviewed journal to ensure that its contents meet the highest standards of scholarship and relevance.  In particular, the journal publishes works in biblical studies, the history of Christianity, theology, and the arts of ministry, including counseling.  The review notes: "I was shocked when renowned Martin Luther King, Jr. scholar, Lewis V. Baldwin of Vanderbilt University, asked if I was familiar with the work of an author who argues in Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (2004), and the book under review, that Gandhi was consistently racist toward black South Afrikans during his roughly twenty-one years of living there and leading the Satyagraha campaign for racial justice essentially for the Indian community. ... The book under review is my first exposure to G. B. Singh's contention that Gandhi was a racist and that his story of being subjected to violent racist treatment during his 1893 train and coach ride from Durban to Pretoria was nothing more than a sham, a fabrication, “a ruse, a charade, and theatrical revelry of Academy Awards proportions..." (215).  It is not clear just how much the co-author, Tim Watson, actually contributed to the writing of this book. " Johnston, Paul (2008-08-04). "Montreal - Gandhi Was a Lying, Racist, Freemason Asshole (Says This Guy)" . Vice . Archived from the original on 2024-06-20 . Retrieved 2024-06-20 . After reviewing Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Vice Media , I consider Vice to be sufficiently reliable in this context. I found the list of awards Vice won as discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373#Reliability of Vice news? to be compelling. The review notes: "But Tim Watson and G.B. Singh don't buy into the hype.  In Gandhi Under Cross-Examination, they create an imaginary courtroom where they can put the screws to an imaginary Gandhi over his non-imaginary racial views, his rampant careerism, and the lies and fabrications at the foundation of his movement for the "firmness of truth." ...  I still have no idea what compelled them to put Hillary Clinton on the book's cover. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gandhi Under Cross Examination to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your first source Humanism Ireland fails WP:V and we don't even know how much coverage there was. Your 2nd source is semi-reliable as already discussed above.  Your last source Vice is a totally unreliable source and it cannot be used for establishing notability. ArvindPalaskar ( talk ) 07:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Humanism Ireland source is verified by this reliable source . It spans pages 22–23 so it is likely significant coverage. Based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Vice Media and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373#Reliability of Vice news? , I disagree that the Vice article is a "totally unreliable source". Cunard ( talk ) 08:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are supposed to verify the source yourself. It can be ignored since you haven't done that. WP:VICE is clear that there is no consensus over reliability of Vice, and that's why it cannot be used for establishing notability. I consider Vice to be totally unreliable because most of its articles (including the one cited here) are misleading. ArvindPalaskar ( talk ) 08:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#2009 book review of Gandhi Under Cross Examination in Humanism Ireland for more information about the Humanism Ireland source. I maintain that Vice is a suitable topic for this subject matter. Cunard ( talk ) 09:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It looks like the Humanism Ireland review was reprinted in the Midwest Book Review , December 2009 if that is easier to access. Astaire ( talk ) 15:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. As noted here , there is a 1,582-word review of the Humanism Ireland review reprinted in the Midwest Book Review in December 2009. This verifies that the review is significant coverage. Cunard ( talk ) 08:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. B. Singh (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity . Cunard ( talk ) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard. I stand by my opinion Vice is fine for this topic, and there is review material in the article. The Humanism source is fine + the journal mentioned before. It's peer reviewed and looks reliable, it doesn't matter that it's obscure. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 09:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Three reliable and in-depth published reviews is enough for WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK for me. It may be partisan junk but that's not the question; the question is whether it's notable partisan junk and I think this demonstrates that it is. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Vice, an unreliable source, hasn't actually provided any review for this book. Christian Theological Seminary journal has a doubtful reliability while Humanism Ireland is not accessible for us right now. This is far from meeting WP:NBOOK . The book  has failed to attract any reviews from the experts of this subject. Orientls ( talk ) 08:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The interview contains critical and review material outside of the actual interview which does count here I'd believe. Vice is not an unreliable source, they are a source that has historically varied in reliability in different topics and editors have not been able to come to an agreement, that does not mean it is unusable for notability. Just because we can't access the source doesn't mean it doesn't count for notability, see WP:NEXIST . You've provided no evidence the other journal would be unreliable except it is somewhat obscure - there are plenty of obscure reliable journals. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 20:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And now we have the source, and it's 1500 words. That is sigcov. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources given above are more than enough for notability. Not liking this "conspiracy theory" isn't sufficient to have an article deleted. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It is well known that almost any controversial book can attract initial coverage from various sources but we also need to look at the quality of sourcing. The book has attracted no reviews from the academics, let alone any experts from this field as Orientls put. Capitals00 ( talk ) 05:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neither Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria nor Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline require "reviews from the academics, let alone any experts from this field".  Cunard ( talk ) 11:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Books don't need academic coverage to be notable.  Any reliable review will do.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 02:46, 2 July 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus