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. Kurykh (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short cases of Clinical Medicine[edit]

Note: Page Short cases of Clinical Medicine moved to Short cases in Clinical Medicine

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

This article should be deleted as it does not meet WP:GNG as it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Three of the sources are not in English and the one English source is just a book listing. This means it fails WP:N as there are no verifiable reliable sources that indicate that this is a notable item, The other three sources do not make this article notable because using Google Translate the sources seem to be more about the book's author rather than the book itself. The only sources that come up for a google search of "Short cases of Clinical Medicine" are basically the same as reference #4. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 19:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC) KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 19:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 19:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Provisional redirect to ABM Abdullah, the author. However, I'm not convinced that article meets WP:AUTHOR and so should probably also be deleted — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to ABM Abdullah, the author. The notability criteria for academic and technical books is very different from WP:GNG. The textbook is published by a major academic publishing company, and is in its fifth edition. On the subcontinent, online lists of prescribed textbooks are all but nonexistent, so I can't prove that it's required reading at, say, Bangladesh's only medical university, where the author teaches, but common sense suggests the publisher wouldn't keep printing new editions if it weren't used at one or more educational institutions. The non-English sources that nom dismisses as "more about the book's author than the book itself" are about the author winning an award for the book from the apex body of all universities in Bangladesh, which shows the book is regarded as an important work.[1][2][3] --Worldbruce (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But, noteability is not inherited. See WP:INHERITED. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 00:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  The book is notable per WP:TEXTBOOK, no one is claiming it inherits notability from anywhere else. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: Page Short cases of Clinical Medicine moved to Short cases in Clinical Medicine --Worldbruce (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article contains little more than unverified promotional claims. There is no indication of coverage in reliable independent sources. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:NBOOK. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is obviously promotional "a well known and prestigious book". I am not sure ABM Abdullah created by the same account is notable either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-From WP:TEXTBOOKS "most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media,[10] the number of editions of the book,.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficiently notable and probably written for promotional reasons. PriceDL (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2017 (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.