Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irish Famine (book) (2nd nomination)

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. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Famine (book)[edit]

The Article fails to meet any of the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (books). It could also be viewed as advertising and promoting non-notable material, as outlined by Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement . The are many books like this on the subject, and this dose not raise anything new which has not already been covered. There are many notable books on the subject, and this is not one of them.--Domer48 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 12:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't doubt the notability of the authors, but for the book itself to be notable I would expect it to be internationally famous, on several best-seller lists, and/or a spark of major controversy in notable publications. I can't find any evidence that this book is any of these, so by all means grant it a few lines on the authors' pages, but it doesn't warrant its own article. A1octopus 11:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book itself is not notable.--Vintagekits 11:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Criteria 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (books) says: A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: 1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. (my bolding).
I've added links to 4 additional reviews in the article bringing the total to eight (8) verifiable, non-trivial independent reviews currently referenced:
New Statesman review
Socialist Review
Historiographical Review from Eastern Illinois University magazine pdf
The Spectator review
America magazine review
Publishers Weekly review (short)
Bookview Ireland review
This book also meets the minimum threshold standards for WP:BK as it has an ISBN number and is cataloged by the National Library of Ireland [1]. Paxse 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wikipedia:Notability (books).

The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.

"Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves notable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is notable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.

The Socialist Review, is by and large a commentary on the Famine, and not on the book, at no time in the review dose it suggest that the information is notable, only that it is useful. In addition, a posting on Socialist Worker web sites, are not themselves notable. And is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)

New Statesman’s review dose not suggest the books notability, and is by and large a commerical web site. The review in fact consintrates on the author and not on the book. This again is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)

America, the Catholic weekly Magizine published by the Jesuits. The reviwer talks more about the author and quite clearly states that this book will not create so much as a “wrinkle” into the Famine debate. And again, I would suggest that this review could not be described as having satisafied the criteria laid out under the Wikipedia:Notability (books)

As for commercial book sites, they would definitely not constitute as being “no-trivial”.

Regards --Domer48 20:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confused. WP:BK does not mention 'commercial book sites' only sites that exist to sell books - like Amazon.com - which is not referenced. The guideline against linking to commercial sites generally is from WP:EL. Naturally, newspapers and magazines that publish book reviews are generally commercial entities - but this does not make their book reviews 'trivial'. Also book reviews do not need to be positive about the book or to specifically mention the word "notable" to be considered verifiable 3rd party references. Paxse 12:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I followed the link provided for Publishers Weekly review (short) (a commercial book site) and got this link,[2]. This would not establish the books notability? I again followed the link for BOOKVIEW IRELAND, and find that again, it is a commercial book site. Regards --Domer48 22:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Publisher's weekly link in your paragraph above shows a short review of the book (scroll down to July publications) your link is to your unsuccessful (and unnecessary) search for the author's name which fails to return any hits. This demonstrates that the PW website search function does not index older reviews - it says nothing about notability. The link to the review in the Eastern Illinois University history magazine 'Historia' (2006 edition) is now dead, as are all links to their magazine archive - it seems they are making some changes on their website. I will search for an archived copy of the magazine and correct the article link if possible. Paxse 12:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a vast number of books on the Irish Famine, for example, a 20sec search on Addall.com (A book site) can bring up over 40 titles. There are a number of Notable titles, in this genre, such as The Great Hunger, by Cecil Woodham-Smith, Irelands Great Famine, by Cormac O Grada, and Ireland Since the Famine, by F.S.L. Lyons. As examples, the reason I mention them, is that they are cited so often in later publications. Examples of this can be found in such publications as The Great Calamity, by Christine Kinealy, The Great Shame, by Thomas Keneally, and Paddy’s Lament, by Thomas Gallagher. It is this fact, which establishes their Notability. This book has not established itself any Notability. And has not been the subject of “multiple” “non-trivial” publications such as I have outlined above. (I have a number of books related to the subject, in addition to those mentioned above and have included some here [3] and here [4] ) Regards--Domer48 09:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This book more than meets Criteria 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (books). There are numerous non-trivial 3rd party reviews as listed by Paxse. The book is therefore notable under wiki guidelines. Kernel Saunters 10:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The book in no way comes close to meeting the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books). For example, as I have already outlined, the book has not been the subject of “Non-trivial” sources. They have not “contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary."

Since the only critira that is been suggested being No.1, as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (books), can I assume that it has been conceeded that the following points, have been despenced with, and that the book dose not meet any of the criteria mentioned below?

“The book has won a major literary award.” It has not!
“The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.” It has not!
“The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.” It most definitly has not!
"The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." They have not!

Again, I will ask the question, what makes this book notable? I assume that editors have read it, and / or are familiar with the subject?

I have addressed the sources which have been cited, and would appreciate some feed back on my previous comments? Regards--Domer48 16:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paxse I have addressd your comments on your talk page, so as not to disrupt this discussion.--Domer48 16:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paxse in their contrabution raised on Notability used the The National Library of Ireland and the fact that the book has an ISBN number to establish Notability. In reply, The National Library of Ireland, like its counterpart in England catalogues all native Publications, regardless of Notability. Most if not all publications now have an ISBN number? Therefore, both these contributions do not establish Notability. In addition, using the terms WP:BK and Wikipedia:Notability (books), interchangeably could lend to the assumption that the book meets the requirements for two separate policies, when they are in fact one and the same. And it dose not satisfy the criteria outlined for notability. Regards --Domer48 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In reply to Domer48, Under Wikipedia:Notability (books), 'A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria' - This books meets Criteria 1. End of Kernel Saunters 18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Kernel Saunters, It would be my contention that the sources provided do not in themselves establish Notability, and as can be clearly seen they would not constitute "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." As I have already pointed out "what is reliable in one topic may not be in another." You have not illustrated how these sources could constitute Notability. Which of the sources provided do you consider "authoritative." In Addition, Criteria 1.Wikipedia:Notability (books), "these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary," and the sources provided do not.

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

"The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors."

Regards --Domer48 19:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

The reviews in these publications are in-depth and provide a wealth of information to expand the article beyond a mere plot summary (even if this were a work of fiction?). Their authors are 'generally regarded as trustworthy' as these are mainstream, well-known publications. They are authorative reviewers of publications. To suggest that these publications are somehow 'trivial' is just not on Kernel Saunters 12:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kernel Saunters The reviews in these publications are not "in-depth" and do not "provide a wealth of information," by any reasonable standard. The authors would not be regarded as "authorative" in relation to the subject matter, and if as you suggest that they are "authorative reviewers of publications," were is the "critical commentary."

The Socialist Review, is by and large a commentary on the Famine, and not on the book, at no time in the review dose it suggest that the information is notable, only that it is useful. In addition, a posting on Socialist Worker web sites, are not themselves notable. And is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)

New Statesman’s review dose not suggest the books notability, and is by and large a commerical web site. The review in fact consintrates on the author and not on the book. This again is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)

The Spectator review is by Kevin Myres, who writes opinion articles. As such, he gives his opinions on the subject, and as an aside mentions the book only in his conclusion. There is no critical commentary, and Kevin Myres is not an authoritative opinion in relation to the subject at hand.

Which of the sources provided do you consider "authoritative." And are we down to just these 3. In addition, is it your opinion once a book, any book has been reviewed it should be in Wikipedia. Regards --Domer48 13:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly are you taking the "authoritative" criterion from? We are NOT just down to three these are good examples, the list is as per Paxse. The notability criteria are what I'm working from in response to the reviewed question Kernel Saunters 13:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These reviews are nothing more than that, simple, plain reviews. The contain no critical commentary what so ever. This book has no satisfied the criteria at all. The book is not notable. I have illustrated the nature and content of the reviews and you have singularly failed to address my comments, and have been unable to establish this books notability. To answer your question, read my comments. Regards --Domer48 14:06, 9 June 2007 (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.