Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Girl Bleed a Lot

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 December 9.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White Girl Bleed a Lot

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

I do not think that this book meets the requirements of WP:NBOOKS. It was self-published and its web presence is relegated to fringe sources (or mocking said sources). Thomas Sowell's review makes up two separate sources, the FrontPage Magazine source is an interview where he's trying to promote his book, and VDARE is...VDARE. It's a bunch of highly conservative websites that I doubt would even be considered reliable sources spouting off praise for this book, and detractions in what are probably the only reliable sources which basically say that this book should not be given the time of day. —Ryulong (琉竜) 01:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Clearly fulfills criteria #1 of WP:NBOOKS. Seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT given the contentious nature of said book. A book that is currently the #1 bestseller, believe it or not, in the "Civil Rights & Liberties" e-books section on Amazon.com[1], should not be so flippantly deleted. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't call snow keep when you're the only person to comment thus far. this book has been out for a year and it's suddenly only now getting coverage? And the #1 spot on Amazon.com's "Civil Rights & Liberties e-books section" doesn't seem to be much of a feat to be honest.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The book is notable and meets the criteria in WP:NBOOKS in an obvious way. It has caused wide discussion, some of it critical to be sure, but that's not part of the criteria. I don't understand this deletion request at all. Nolens Volens (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have my doubts about the notability of a self-published right wing nut job's book is all. If we do not discuss the author as a subject before this book then it is highly unlikely that the book is truly of historical note.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've revealed your agenda. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can think that if you want. I have pointed out the issues with this book not meeting the minimum requirements of Wikipedia's retention policy. No one has bothered to refute it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have already. It clearly fulfills criteria #1 of WP:NBOOKS. You've just chosen to ignore it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria #1 of WP:NBOOKS states
The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. 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. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
as well as
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.
and
"Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, 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.
Nothing regarding this book meets these requirements. As I've pointed out, two of the references are identical, all of the sources praising the book are right wing conservative websites who have a vested interest in spreading hate and racism, which is what the two sources critical of the book point out.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a borderline personal attack. Please calm down. Ypnypn (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Point #1 of WP:NBOOKS says "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." Let's go through the article's reference at the time I write this and see what coverage they give:

"Why Aren’t Race Riots News?" in the National Review does not discuss the book beyond its title. There is no critical coverage of the book itself.
"White Girls Bleed a Lot" at LewRockwell.com is a reprint of the National Review story.
"White Girl Bleed a Lot" at FrontPage Magazine is an interview with Flaherty about the book, so that does go in depth about the book. However, it's an interview rather than critical commentary about the book.
"'White Girl Bleed A Lot'—New Book on Black Mob Violence Frames No Hypotheses" is a column at VDARE.com that, while it mentions the book, does not discuss it in depth.
"Why conservatives obsess over flash mobs and 'race riots'" at Salon.com does discuss the book in depth. It's a panning of the book, but nonetheless, it's significant coverage.
"WorldNetDaily Now Peddling White Nationalism" from the Southern Poverty Law Center mentions the book in one paragraph but does not cover it extensively.

So, I count five unique sources: one review that pans the book, one interview with the author, and three mentions of the title in works about related topics. The book has not received enough coverage in independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC) amended 17:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Clearly meets criteria in WP:NBOOKS. The book has been the subject of reviews by Thomas Sowell of the National Review and Alex Pareene of Salon (these reviews are positive and negative, respectively). It has also been the subject of detailed discussion and review at sources such as FrontPage Magazine. It is a popular work which has caused wide discussion; it is not self-published. Some specific points:
- "Why Aren’t Race Riots News?" in the National Review is not a "trivial" mention of the work, such as an entry in the list of all books published in 2013. It describes the content of the book and says that the author of the review found it well documented and in agreement with his own research. Thomas Sowell has actually written about the book twice: the second mention is here http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364322/very-dangerous-game-thomas-sowell, in which some of the chapters of the book are mentioned. Clearly Thomas Sowell finds this book notable.
- Likewise, http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/censored-black-on-white-violence-in-america is a detailed review of the book; FrontPage has in fact mentioned the book a number of times, and did not merely publish an interview with the author.
- Salon.com has a detailed discussion of the book; the review is negative, but that's not one of the criteria for inclusion.
- WND books is not a vanity press, and the book is not self-published. WND certainly searches out controversial subject matter, and it's no academic publisher; however, it has published important works such as the memoirs of Ion Mihai Pacepa.
- 'White Girl Bleed A Lot' is the best-selling book on Amazon.com in the "Civil Rights & Liberties" category, and was at No. 630 for all of Amazon.com at the time I checked. That doesn't establish notability in and of itself, but it certainly helps show that this is a popular and much-discussed work.-Nolens Volens (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a best selling book in the Kindle store of that category, not all of Amazon.com. Thomas Sowell has written about the book once and the content on the two websites is identical. WND books may not be a vanity press but this book is certainly self-published. Frontpage is a right wing rag that isn't a reliable source because this is a promotional interview with the author rather than an independent review of the book.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The kindle and paperback editions of the book are #1 and #2 books respectively in the category of "Civil Rights & Liberties" on Amazon.com, not just in the Kindle store. I would call that pretty significant, as is being in top 1000 on Amazon.com as a whole. Please start actually following up the discussion, if you want people to WP:AGF. I gave a URL to a second article by Thomas Sowell, who clearly considers the book significant; and I gave a URL to a FrontPage Magazine article which reviews the book, which is separate from the interview with the author. It is not a self-published book; you seem to be unclear on the concept of self-publication. And I am not sure why you think that "right-wing" is some kind of a winning argument. A number of well-established journalists write for FrontPage, and it is widely read; it certainly is a conservative publication in the same way that, say, Huffington Post is liberal, but it is good enough to establish the notability of something (note that we are not discussing the quality or correctness of the book anywhere in the AfD discussion, which is about notability only). -Nolens Volens (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting WP:NBOOKS#Online bookstores: "There is no present agreement as to whether a book's ranking at Amazon (found in the 'product details' section) constitutes evidence of notability." If its sales and ranking were significant, that would be mentioned in an independent source, no? Nobody's pointed out that such a review exists, or at least hasn't cited it in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough reliable sources commenting on the book, both from "conservative" and "liberal" outlets. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1. The book is clearly not self-published. 2. It's been reviewed by at least 2 national columnists. 3. It's on one of Amazon's best-seller lists. This does seem to be a case of an editor simply objecting to the book's existence. Jlambert (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"""Book should be kept on Wiki. If it is deleted, Wiki is nothing more than a liberal publication with its contents slanted to a socialist agenda. I have always enjoyed and supported Wiki financially, I will no more if it is involved in censorship of information to the people.""" — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurfinGator (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deleting this seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Frotz(talk) 00:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:NBOOK multiple book reviews. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to Nolens Volens for finding those other reviews. It now looks to me like there's enough coverage to support an article. At the least, I'd like to give a few more months to work on the article based on that other coverage. If, three to six months down the road, the article were to still be a mess, then it might be appropriate to start a second AfD. At this time, and in light of the sources presented in this discussion that were not in the article before, I now think improvement is the better path than deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems like editor bias to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrOringderff (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 November 2013 (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.