Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supremely Partisan

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 keep. WP:BOOKCRIT certainly appears to be met, and nobody is really arguing otherwise. Two of the four delete !votes focus primarily on the WP:COI issues, which are not grounds to delete, and a third one focuses, somewhat oddly, on the fact that the book meets WP:BOOKCRIT. Steve Smith (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supremely Partisan

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

Non-notable book; perhaps merge to the article about the author, James D. Zirin. This AfD is concurrent with one on the same author's other book, at WP:Articles for deletion/The Mother Court. The Zirin bio article very narrowly survived an AfD, with "no consensus" a few months ago. A regular merge proposal at Talk:James D. Zirin produced almost no input, aside from suggestions that:

One of the books might squeak by under WP:BOOKCRIT.
A countervailing view that there's really little salvageable here, since most of the content is excessive pull-quoting from reviews, not encyclopedic coverage.

I would add that the primary editor of these pages continues to be Zirin himself (see, e.g., rejected edit "request" here that is really more of a statement of how Zirin is going to continue writing about himself). I thought that this would all be taken as a warning sign by Zirin that he needed to abide by WP:COI, find independent reliable sources, and suggest neutral, improving edits (if anything) rather than continue to work directly on his own bio material here, but the situation's simply gotten worse. And this is after multiple CoI warnings at the user's talk page. The entire mess is just untoward and inappropriate, an abuse of WP as a self-promotion mechanism, and it needs to stop. Zirin + his work are perhaps marginally notable, gathered into one article, but we definitely do not need three articles, two of which don't really qualify as encyclopedia articles at all.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish, is blocking Zirin an option? If it is, it might be a better solution than deleting 2 books that so clearly pass WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NB--Jaldous1 (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It needs two independent reviews to pass WP:BOOKCRIT, yes? Here's one possible one, I cannot read the article. [1] Here's another possible one: [2] I can read this one: [3] And there's a blurb on it here: [4] And that's about it in terms of reviews. I note the sources not in an attempt to show notability, but to show if it passes WP:BOOKCRIT, it's by a hair. A lot of the sources have the author talking about the book or the topic of the book instead of actually reviewing the book, and the sources that do review the book seem to be British? SportingFlyer talk 07:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you "cannot read" the review in the The Times (of London,) is not an argument for deleting; nor is the fact that "the sources that do review the book seem to be British."E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like an advertisement for the book. Which is its purpose, as we know who authored this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 reviews in major publications are already on the page. Passes WP:NBOOK. This seems to be a case of WP:FORUMSHOP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. Multiple book reviews in The Times, The Spectator and the ABA Journal unequivocally satisfy GNG and NBOOK. This is not even remotely doubtful and comments like "squeak by" are simply nonsense. Moreover, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R, since the author has an article. Quoting reviews is not unencyclopedic either. James500 (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, the ABA review is neither brief nor a single paragraph. Moreover, the reviews in The Times and The Spectator would satisfy NBOOK even without the ABA Journal. Since NBOOK requires two sources, an argument that ignores at least two sources can never defeat NBOOK. And GNG doesn't even necessarily require more than one. Also WP:SUMMARY does not authorise the merger of this notable topic, and it would be a misapplication of SUMMARY to argue that it does. James500 (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC) I should also point out that there are other reviews besides the three in the article such as The Federalist and Kirkus. (There seems to be something in Questia but my browser won't load it.) So three reviews has just become at least five or six. James500 (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Add to that the New York Law Journal, seven reviews. James500 (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC) And if there is a review in Slate, that makes eight. Unequivocally notable. James500 (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to author. ABA and Slate "reviews" are brief paragraphs. Not confident that there's a whole lot to write based on the extant other two sources alone, so the procedure is to write about the book in summary style within the parent article. czar 21:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is, unsurprisingly, material in the reviews from which the article can be expanded. But Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you replying to me? I addressed why the sourcing wasn't a clear case for sufficiently addressing the topic. We have summary style exactly for these cases: expand there and feel free to split out when warranted/proven. czar 02:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory. Numerous reviews in secondary sources. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 13:16, Sunday, June 3, 2018 (UTC)
Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK as Supremely Partisan has been reviewed/covered by Kirkus here, The Times here, The Spectator here, Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries (Choice) here, The East Hampton Star here, ABA Journal here, and The Federalist here. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus and Choice are librarian trade publications: they review non-fiction routinely, so inclusion isn't a sign of notability. As mentioned above, ABA is a short blurb. East Hampton Star and The Federalist, getting towards the dregs, are a community paper and unreliable blog, respectively. So we're left with two reviews: Times and Spectator, which we would normally cover summary style within the parent unless there is some overabundance of summary or secondary source coverage to warrant a split: not forthcoming, in this case. czar 17:27, 10 June 2018 (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.