Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu Selves in a Modern World

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 18:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Selves in a Modern World

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

No secondary sources or claims of significance - just an article cited to the book itself, saying what's in it. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. McGeddon (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added secondary sources. This book is cited in other works. Further research, possibly in password protected sites, may determine if WP:TEXTBOOKS applies. --Djembayz (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - While I don't have particularly strong feelings on this one, the fact that the book has had journal reviews from Religions of South Asia and at least one other publication make me feel like it's worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We cannot keep articles on Wikipedia because someone have feelings for it. In other words, it have no reliable sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of emotional feelings. Religions of South Asia is a credible, reliable source. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Meets WP:NBOOK. Simple as that. AusLondonder (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2015 (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.