Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brewer (John Updike)


 * 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:HEY Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Brewer (John Updike)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fails to establish notability. There's some coverage in "The John Updike Encyclopedia", but that seems to be the main extent of it. Realistically, the main articles seem like they should be plenty capable of handling all discussion of the topic unless there's some overwhelming amount of coverage I'm not seeing. TTN (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, speedy close. An honest, competent editor would not have made this nomination. A simple Google Scholar search turns up nearly 2400 hits, including such obviously relevant pieces as "From Shillington to Ipswich: John Updike's Mid-Century Suburbia". The coverage so casually dismissed in the Updike "Encyclopedia" is actually a detailed full-page entry treating the subject as likely the most significant and commented-on of Updike's fictive locales. There is, of course, no need to produce an "overwhelming amount of coverage" to demonstrate that a subject meets GNG requirements, but it is clear that an apparently overwhelming amount exists, and the only reason the nominator is "not seeing" any is that he simply is not looking. But this is the same editor who absurdly insisted that there was no substantial coverage of George Orwell's fiction. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Jumping in and dropping some unrealistic number helps nothing. TTN (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's neither a substantive response nor the expected response of a good faith editor. Since you're essentially acknowledging that the subject meets GNG requirements -- hardly a surprise for an important element in the work of one of the most acclaimed and most studied American authors of the latter half of the 20th century -- there's no reason not to summarily close this. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what kind of response you expect when you jump into every interaction with your trademark curmudgeon attitude. I guess I'm not particularly one to talk considering I did the same thing fairly recently. But regardless, all you've done is claim sources exist (and that number seems literally impossible no matter what word combo I use) without any regard to their substance or the proper weight of this topic in relation to the main articles. TTN (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you're accusing me of lying. And your accusation includes plain falsehood. "Literally impossible"? Not hardly. Your utter lack of searching competence, self-proclaimed, is no basis for a rational argument. All you do is claim sources do not exist. I plain and simple gave an example of a substantive relevant source, whose existence and content you've made no effort to examine. You've got a long track record of at best gross inaccuracy. You have no business impugning the honesty or competence of any other editor, especially with your trademark attitude of determined ignorance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering that "'Brewer' "Updike'" only gives 1450 results and "'Brewer' 'John Updike'" gives 691, I'm not particularly sure how else you could broaden the search without introducing irrelevant results. Regardless, I guess it's a particularly pointless argument because there's really not much relative difference if you take away 1700 results. It's up to you to provide sources to establish notability. Tossing out a random number does nothing in particular, nor does your eternally combative nature to any and every person who disagrees even the slightest with how you think. TTN (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication of real-world notability or importance beyond the works this appears in (WP:NOTPLOT, WP:GNG). It would need quite a few non-trivial sources to convince me this needs a stand-alone article and can't be covered in the articles on the works it appears in. Tarbox and Henry Bech suffer the same problem. – sgeureka t•c 08:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorse my !vote even after improvement. It still qualifies as a stub per WP:STUBDEF (i.e. no indication of significant coverage), the plot has just turned into sourced plot now (doesn't help with WP:NOTPLOT), and the sources that Hunter Kahn mentioned below seem better suited to develop and beef up the main articles on the novels (or a novel-spanning franchise article). – sgeureka t•c 11:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added some additional content and sources that go well beyond plot summary and that I believe provide the more significant coverage you're seeking. (Please note these are not the only sources I've seen available about Brewer, but rather a couple; I think much more could be added to the article in the future to improve it even further.) — Hunter Kahn 16:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article did not cite any sources before, but I've gone through and added several from books, news articles, journals, and other sources. There are many other sources out there beyond the ones I added (I simply added a few to back up the specific facts that were already included in the article) so the article could certainly be expanded beyond what currently exists. All of this is more than enough to convince me the subject meets notability standards and should be kept. — Hunter Kahn 12:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's barely any significant coverage in anything you added. The overall commentary on how the author views America itself definitely seems to be something that, if not an article on its own, should either be in the author's article or a series article. This one city, however, does not seem to have received significant enough discussion to require it be a completely separate topic. I really don't get why people are so adamant about splitting minor topics when the main articles range from horrible to slightly decent. TTN (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And likewise, I don't really understand why there are so many editors who seem to be adamant about deleting large swatches of articles about fictional topics, rather than searching for sources and expand/improve those articles, which it seems to be would better serve our readers. But in any event, as I said above, I didn't add any additional content to this article, just citations to support the existing content that was already here, so I can see why you might misunderstand that there isn't significant coverage available. But as I said, over the course of the limited research I did, I found a large amount of coverage on this topic that could be easily used to expand this article further. — Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 13:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at most of the sources themselves, but they're simply passing mentions in relation to the plot in most cases. The primary commentary on this city seems to relate to the author's draw to his hometown, which is a small part of the wider commentary on his works and personal views. TTN (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe there is much more coverage of this topic than you are indicating, but in any event, there's no need for us to continue to engage in a back-and-forth. We've stated our opinions, we disagree with each other, and we can leave it at that. :) — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 14:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:GOOGLEHITS is a weak indicator of notability, but nobody presented a single source which provides an in-depth analysis. Yes, there are some mentions in passing, but that's not enough. Do ping me if an in-depth source is offered for review so I can reconsider my vote.--<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  21:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Several of the books and scholarly sources I added discuss the setting in more depth than a passing mention. Additionally, The John Updike Encyclopedia by Jack De Bellis dedicates considerable space and coverage to Brewer, Pennsylvania, including how it" represents a typical middle-class American town reflecting all the changes in America from 1959 to 1989" including altering family patterns, changing institutions, declining and emerging businesses, changing styles in sports, entertainment, rising new classes and groups, changing styles of leisure, increasingly visible vice, and more. This is just one example of the types of sources I came upon while searching for citations to add to the article. (Material from this particular book has not yet been added to the article itself, but hopefully I'll get the chance to do so some time soon...) — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 22:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: I have added some additional content and sources (both the book I mentioned to you earlier, as well as some others) that I think provide some of the in-depth sourcing you were looking for. Please feel free to take a look and let me know your thoughts. Also please note, as I just said to  above, these are not the only sources I've seen available about Brewer, but rather a couple; I think additional expansions and improvements could easily be made in the future. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 16:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. I'm finding a lot of discussion of Brewer in literary criticism, which scholars consistently see as the core site of what Updike has to say about America, so I think it has a claim to notability -- I can read these more thoroughly and add to the article later. But I also notice that there is no entry for the "Rabbit" cycle itself, as a cycle -- the cycle-as-a-cycle is clearly extremely notable, with much scholarly work discussing how Updike develops his themes across the works, and a substantial section on Brewer would clearly have a place in such an article. Should this article be merged into a new "Rabbit cycle" article? ~ oulfis 🌸 (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is potential for a standalone article about the Rabbit series (or cycle or brand or whatever it would be termed). Based on the small amount of research I've done on Brewer it seems like there is a LOT written about the Rabbit novels that would justify such an article. I do think the coverage about Brewer itself is significant enough that a standalone article about is still appropriate (and just redirecting it at this point in time would just result in an article skewed heavily about the setting and not touching on the other elements of the series), though if a general Rabbit series article were to be created, discussions about possible merges could take place in the appropriate talk places later on... — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 20:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge per Oulfis. Brewer is important in Updike's work as really the center of the only fictional universe he created and set multiple works in. Enough third-party sources, now cited in the article, have written about it that the question of independent notability (not that there ever would have been one to a reader familiar with Updike's work and scholarship on it; we should remember when considering notability that the threshold question isn't how many sources are cited in the article, it's how many could be) is settled. With time and effort this article could easily make it to this list. Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Hunter Kahn has done an excellent job in rescuing this article, as demonstrated by the many citations to independent reliable sources in the reference section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.