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. Tone 18:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punished for being a father[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non notable self-published book. No independent coverage whatsoever. b uidhe 05:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 05:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 05:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 05:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources have been provided, and I can't find any myself. If the article were to be kept, it would need significant revisions to conform to a neutral point of view with regard to the divorce case that this book is about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Searched and could find no independent coverage. — Hunter Kahn 15:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Non-notable, seemingly self-published book with no coverage in reliable, secondary sources, written by a non-notable author. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find RS for this one. Per the nominator: Fails our GNG. Lightburst (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Detele Completely non notable work. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I objections are not substantiated per the definition of the purpose of Wikipedia. The primary reasons of objections are: 1. Non-notable work by non-notable author. 2. Does not portray a neutral point of view. I searched the purpose of Wikipedia and it came out to be:

"Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing."

In this purpose, I do not see any reference to that knowledge can only emanate from notable works. Again there is no reference to notability whatsoever. The word 'knowledge' also does not contain any implicit or explicit relation to notability. Many times non-notable people in our life such as friends, siblings or parents give us the maximum knowledge. I think the notability criterion needs a relook itself.

The second reason for deletion is that the article needs significant revisions to conform to a neutral point of view. The need for neutral point of view does form a part in definition of the purpose of Wikipedia. Therefore, this indeed is a legitimate concern. However, in the absence of any direction any objection is without a foundation. Perhaps some examples where the neutrality is absent would have been helpful?

Most of the articles in Wikipedia are not in a NPOV. What might be a neutral point of view for one is biased for the other. The objective of the community is to asymptotically approach that point of view. Of course, anybody, similar to any other article on Wikipedia, has the right to change this article to bring it more towards the neutral point of view.

I do unequivocally feel that the book and the article adds to the body of knowledge of the humanity. The book deals with legal wrangles of two significant democracies. The book brings to fore the important ramification of families torn, particularly when the tearing apart happens in two different countries. The book also expiates on the reasons and ramifications of broken family structure in the United States such as mass shootings, drug abuse, mass incarcerations and suicides.

As such, I respectfully differ with the point of view of other members in this discussion and vote to keep the article. Wilkn (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)wilkn[reply]

@Wilkn: There is a huge difference between information, and knowledge. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: I agree. Wilkn (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)wilkn[reply]

@Wilkn: wikipedia is "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge." Unless the book, or any subject is notable, it is not knowledge, it is just information. If we keep creating articles for all the information, we will end up creating a "database" instead of an "encyclopaedia". —usernamekiran (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: thanks! So only notable stuff is knowledge? Presidents Trump, Obama, Clinton or Bush may be notable, but not necessarily knowledgeable. However, my primary school math teacher may not be notable, but still knowledgeable. Is that not possible. Yes, all the mainstream media will run after the notability of the aforementioned presidents, however, should Wikipedia also follow the suit? Can I not add a reference to an easy way to do long multiplications that was taught to me by my primary school teacher and he self published it? I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. Knowledge and notability are almost independent. If we start testing knowledge with the parameter of notability we might as well rename wikipedia as a tabloid.

Delete per nom. I grieve in stereo (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2020 (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.