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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In course of true love[edit]

In course of true love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Prod declined by author, so I'm putting this up for discussion. Article about a young author's first book, published by a small publisher apparently known best for a genre called 'Hinglish'. Two references provided: one is flipkart, a sales site, and the other is to Hindustan Times, but the reference goes to today's issue and I can't see this in there (I admit to flicking through and abandoning hope at the start of the sports pages). Peridon (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 20:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found the article, it's on page 19 (just past the sports section). The article is barely about the book, it's more about the author (and some about his next book), which is reflected in the current WP article. I support deletion on the basis of no significant coverage of this book. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable yet.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 01:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Dwaipayanc and I Jethrobot. GregJackP Boomer! 01:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Even if there is one mention in the paper, that's one source. One source does not show notability, you need several of them and they just don't seem to exist at this point in time. This just isn't notable at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable coverage or reviews in sight. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Secret of success (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2012 (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.