Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Edda


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

British Edda

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable per WP:NBOOK and any expansion is inevitably going to give undue weight to the author's now very fringe theories. The bibliography entry in Laurence Waddell is sufficient coverage. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 20:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete on basis of not apparently meeting relevant notability guidelines. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable . "Eden triad" appears to be discussed only in this book, and this book does not appear to be the subject of significant comment anywhere.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep after sterling work by Silver seren. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. This book does not appear to pass any of our notability requirements for books. I see six references in Google Scholar to this book, only one of which seems to be in a well-cited notable publication, and I don't see any notable contemporary reviews or mentions in notable contemporary publications in the usual bibliographical databases. However, it is absolutely NOT the case that expanding an article on a notable book dedicated to a fringe theory will "inevitably" give undue weight to the theory. Fringe theories do not disappear when the mainstream sticks its fingers in its ears and pretends they don't exist (and that's intellectually dishonest in any event): fringe theories disappear when they are brought to light and discussed extensively and neutrally, with excellent references to reliable sources, so that their deficiencies are obvious to the casual reader. That's where due weight should be applied: truth seeks light. --NellieBly (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But this isn't a notable book and there aren't (as far as I can find) any mainstream reliable sources that discuss it. Hence, any coverage beyond the stub we have would inevitably have to rely on the book itself and therefore give undue weight to it. I wasn't making a general statement about articles on fringe topics. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 21:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Did any of you guys even look for sources at all? Like the 1,870 Google Books hits? The 30 pages in the biography alone are enough to expand the article to even Good Article status, not to mention the New York Times review and commentary in places like The Spectator, The Nation and athenæum, The British Museum Quarterly, not to mention the tons of other books that discuss the subject. Silver  seren C 22:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have a copy of the two sources you linked. I notice from the blurbs provided that in both the term British Eda appears only once and is mentioned in passing in the The British museum quarterly; that does not seem like a significant mention. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Snippet view doesn't always show every instance a word is used in a book. Not to mention that the review in The Nation is discussed in this book, implying that the review is substantial enough and, since it says "Another reviewer", meaning there are other reviews discussed in that book as well. Not to mention the more than 1800 other mentions in Google books. You have to realize that you're dealing with a book from the 1930s. That it has this much recovered news and book info about it (and is still being mentioned significantly in books today) shows that it is notable for what it discusses. Silver  seren C 23:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Really odd. When I searched Google Books last night I found virtually nothing, now I find a number of sources. Sometimes I hate Google. :-) Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess because they have to have a complicated mathematical code for the structure of searches, not to mention added code that places more emphasis in different regions of the world, sometimes it just conks out and acts like there's nothing when there really is. Silver  seren C 06:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have direct access to the sources above? Have you read the sources and further reading you have added to the article? It seems a major issue to base the keep off articles that few have access to so that we can verify it. I wouldn't have an issue with for example, merge pending substantial expansion to justify notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't need to have direct access to them. Just from seeing that they are reviews and to see all the other available sources on Gooble Books, notability is pretty clear for this book. Like I said before, to be able to find this much coverage of a book from the 1930s, when we haven't even tried looking harder for the more buried stuff because of that, shows that this is an extremely notable book for us to find as much as there is, not to mention that the book is mentioned in other books that have been published even up to this past year, thus the importance of it is enduring. Silver  seren C 15:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And i've already expanded the article a significant amount. And that was with barely going through two pages of the biography. Silver  seren C 15:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to author biography, expanding (if possible) the other descriptions in the book entries there as well. I don't see a need for a separate article unless someone writes one with quite a lot more info, in which case they can split it out again. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's clear that a subject is notable and that it can be expanded significantly (as the biography reference attests), then it should have it's own article. Silver  seren C 01:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Is the expansion going to be based purely on the biography? Surely a common sense approach would be that if most if not all of the cited article content is from the biography it suggests that it is reasonable for wikipedia to follow suit and have a section on the book in the authors wikipedia page. Justifing the existence of the article through WP:GOOGLEHITS seems a bad metric to judge notability also, since for the most part the significance of the mention in the sources can not be verified. It seems none of the criteria for the WP:NBOOK guidelines have been met. Specifically this section on non-contemporary books highlights the issue: We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering i've been adding in other references to the article as well, I think i'm dealing with that issue. As for your quoted comment, this book very clearly meets that. It is highly written about and has been written about for the past 80 years, even until today. Its place in literature seems significant, since it was one of the first to suggest that the Elder Edda was from Scotland, which was later proven correct. Silver  seren C 16:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Laurence Waddell . Does not merit a separate article. - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address anything in regards to the sources. Silver  seren C 02:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I am opposed to article zealotry. Go to wikia.com and start your own Waddell Wiki. - Frankie1969 (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what that means. You have not referred to any policies of notability or anything in regards to this article. There are clear and obvious sources discussing this subject, which I have exhibited by improving the article in question. Silver  seren C 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I've just gone and added some info to the article. Silver  seren C 05:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is currently being significantly improved by silver seren and the progress so far suggest it is notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Good work by Silver seren makes a compelling case for notability.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There are a lot more sources than I'd found, so I'm withdrawing my original nomination. I'm still concerned that the article doesn't make it clear that much of the book is absolute rubbish, but it is notable. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 07:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about the book (except the little that is in the article), if you elaborate on your concerns on the article talk page it would be a great help (also with any reliable sources if available), cheers. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per admirable rescue work by User:Silver seren. Current version bears no resemblance to version nominated for deletion. Applied sources put this work far past retention bar and demonstrate potential for growth and improvement. BusterD (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.