Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrate Your Life

:{{la|Celebrate Your Life}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Celebrate_Your_Life Stats])

:({{Find sources|Celebrate Your Life}})

Seems to fail WP:NBOOK, being sourced only to a single (anonymous?) review and a nice personal letter from a University of Oxford professor. McGeddon (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• delete - one review is not significant coverage. Academics get plenty of free books from authors and publishers in their field, and while the letter acknowledging the book is positive, it does not make the book notable. --bonadea contributions talk 08:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• : Well, at least single source is needed for---, is the review by (anonymous?) legitimate matter and reason for deletion?, secondly, the letter of a professor of the University of Oxford is an [http://www.biharplus.in/news/bihar-events/university-of-oxford-praises-dr-birbal-jha%E2%80%99s-works/ official] letter and that is published too. Justice007 (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

::*The problem is that it's incredibly common for people to write up small blurbs and the like, usually for the purpose of putting it on the book jacket. The letter doesn't really count towards notability since it's really just someone thanking the author for sending him a book. It's not actually a review, it's a personal correspondence. The writer may expect that a snippet might be placed on the jacket as a blurb, but only with her explicit consent- which isn't actually on the letter. In any case, this letter doesn't count as an actual review. Now if the professor were to publish a review in one of the various places that would be considered a reliable source such as a peer reviewed journal or even one of the official student newspapers of Oxford, then that would count towards notability. But until that happens, this letter does not count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

:::*Basically put, letters like this are standard fare. Most will receive them in some form or fashion, as it's the polite thing to do. Because they're so commonly distributed to various authors and publishers, we need more than this to show that it's more than just a polite brushoff. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect to Birbal_Jha#Publications. The article for the author needs a LOT of work to clean it up and remove all of the puffery, but for now this would be a reasonable redirect to the author's article. I'll try to clean it up, as its current state makes it look fairly non-notable and promotional in tone. I think that there is notability here for the author, but not enough to justify a separate article for each of his works. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

:*I've cleaned the article so there shouldn't be any BLP with the author's article now. There is notability enough for him to pass GNG, I believe. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

---

• Delete. Don't think it meets WP:NBOOK requirements. I also do not think that Oxford letter means much: the site it's published on doesn't appear very reliable, and even if authentic, I don't think it can be considered "published" or a "work." mikeman67 (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect to Birbal_Jha#Publications, per Tokyogirl79, although I'm not 100% convinced that Birbal Jha himself is notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2014 (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.