Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Throne of a Thousand Years

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Throne of a Thousand Years

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

This is just a self-published book, it fails Wikipedia:Notability (books); the only reviews of this English-language book are in Swedish, published in small newspapers in the author-publisher's home region. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user above is not neutral regarding any of my work on Wikimedia projects. That has long beeen a well documented fact. I hope this discussion and its outcome, if taken seriously by others, will clearly be influenced by editors whose lack of bias is beyond reproach. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There has been a lot of discussion about the notability of this article already at Talk:Throne of a Thousand Years. I will try to summarise it here. The central claim to notability of this book are the three Swedish newspaper articles cited in the article. I have already tried to find sources using the find sources template, but I didn't have any luck. Because of this, the reliability of the Swedish sources seems paramount. However, we haven't yet had any comments by a disinterested third party who speaks good enough Swedish to judge them. What we do know without having such comments is that the newspapers are all local, not national. Until we get a good appraisal of the sources I will withhold from !voting. There was some talk of going to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard instead of here, but Pieter Kuiper chose to take it here instead. Also, just as SergeWoodzing said, he and Pieter do seem to have a past history of dispute, although I haven't investigated the details. This has resulted in a confrontary tone on the talk page; hopefully we can avoid that here. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour^♫ 05:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Leaving it to others to evaluate, it seems to me that the book's inclusion as a reference work at all those libraries (which can be verified by checking their collections which usually are openly available on the Internet) might also factor into this. I have had to assume that the 9-page bibliography has something to do with that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I dont understand what all this buzz is all about on this articles discussion page. I see that it is sourced somewhat anyway. I say Keep an awaits more consensus on the issue.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that the references section has been expanded since the article has been brought to AfD, particularly with regard to translations of the source material. There were no quotes in this section when the discussion on the talk page first began. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that is not correct. The last edit to the page is my bringing this to AfD. As to the Swedish small-town newspapers, there is nothing particularly unreliable about them, but some of it is more "human interest" in the author, who is called a local oddball with many books. Any garage band or farmer's league sports team can also show such coverage in the local press. It does not establish notability. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, sorry, I see that you're right. The references section was expanded after most of the talk page discussion, but before the AfD nomination. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anything I have written here is specifically questioned, I have already decided to abstain from further involvement, as I can be perceived as biased. I respectfully suggest that Pieter Kuiper (who defninitely is biased) also abstain, since nothing he is going to add - such as sarcasms like "garage band or farmer's league sports team" - is likely to create clarity or balance here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is a typically misleading Kuiperism: his non-factual addition of "local" to "oddball" - whereas the article actually stresses the author's extensive international background. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdly, and lastly (I hope), I might point out how that user's only interest in English Wikipedia is his biased input about this book. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serge, you have said here and above that Pieter has a "well-documented" history of bias against you. Would you mind pointing us towards the evidence you are talking about? Are we just talking diffs as evidence, or have you actually brought this up with some kind of central dispute noticeboard on a Wikimedia project somewhere? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a search and found this at ANI (note also the links to past discussions at the top). Is there anything other than this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not get into it more than that here and now. I think we've got enough to establish bias. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The regional newspaper coverage demonstrates local notability - quotations and translations have been provided, so it is clear the articles do discuss the book. In addition I found this article, which is on a scholarly topic by someone with a doctorate (a friend who unlike me can read Ukrainian, tells me it argues the Ynglingar were Scythians) and cites it (it's the last item in the bibliography, number 22). It looks as if the book may have been superseded in its stated purpose by number 19 and/or number 20, and it is unfortunate in some ways that the author donated copies of his book to libraries rather than letting them establish a paper/electronic trail discussing buying it. But notability doesn't expire and is not affected by something having only foreign-language sources, and a Ukrainian citation is evidence of importance beyond what's shown in the newspapers. There may also be other newspaper articles further afield; 1996 is uncomfortably far back to search in online archives; but in my estimation we have enough to consider it notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does a reference by a doctor (in what?) with a nutty nationalistic theory establish notibility? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political science, see the first page. It's an academic citation, which is an indication of notability, and also indicates interest in the book outside the region of Sweden, which has been the objection to the newspaper articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I already considered the book borderline notable because of the Swedish newspaper articles. The Ukrainian citation pointed out by Yngvadottir is enough to persuade me that the article should definitely be kept. I am also of the opinion that if this book is really the first English-language account of the kings and queens of Sweden - and I haven't found any evidence that it is not - then that should also be taken into account in judging notability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:29, 15 May 2011 (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.