|
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
|
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*:Even fringe books get reviewed, so that's not a guarantee. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 08:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
*:Even fringe books get reviewed, so that's not a guarantee. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 08:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
*::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. [[User:ArvindPalaskar|ArvindPalaskar]] ([[User talk:ArvindPalaskar|talk]]) 08:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
*::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. [[User:ArvindPalaskar|ArvindPalaskar]] ([[User talk:ArvindPalaskar|talk]]) 08:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
*'''delete''', no coverage is secondary reliable sources, vice and semi-reliable journal don't prove the book's notability. [[User:Artem.G|Artem.G]] ([[User talk:Artem.G|talk]]) 11:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Book from conspiracy theorists that failed to attract any coverage or reviews. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]