Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female Chauvinist Pigs


 * 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, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish the notability of this book per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. John254 00:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Female Chauvinist Pigs

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of importance of work, no evidence given of external references or reviews. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously notable, references now provided from two major news sources from different parts of the world, referred to as "wave-making" in one of those two references. Do some homework before nominating an article for deletion Speedy Keep — Verrai 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Calm down, the article is now cited and it's unlikely to be deleted. What, exactly, is your problem? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * His problem is that there seems to be an influx of Wikipedia editors who refuse to do research on a particular topic, even so much as a Google search, and instead go forward to delete it.--WaltCip 10:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like the kind of situation could have called for a polite suggestion rather than a brusque command, but hey... maybe civility is dead. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Problem is that its a popular book on Amazon with 88 user reviews. You should have done some basic research before nominating for Afd rather than having us do it. Operating 23:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A couple of pages for the community to review: Before nominating an AfD and AfD Wikietiquette. --Evb-wiki 17:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - the book is clearly notable. --Evb-wiki 15:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - (1) Amazon.com user reviews are not a particularly good indicator of notability IMO. Completely subject to gaming and piling on. (2) A review describing something as "wave-making" is reviewer hyperbole (prospective, at that) and not evidence of actual waves made. (3) Two published reviews barely qualifies as "multiple published reviews" per WP:BK but whatever, I've seen other reviews of it so I'm sure they could be found. (4) I do not believe this work is particularly notable: It has not yet, and I would be very surprised if in the future it makes any kind of impact on the world, any social movement, any cultural practice, academic thought, or anything else. Will it become the name or face of a movement? Will it set any publishing records? Will it even be remembered 10 years from now? I doubt it. We use the objective notability indicia as proxies to get at real notability, and while this book scrapes by on the "reviews" criteria (which are evidence of notability but not notability itself), come on. This book is, when all is said and done, one instance of a set of books whose reason for being might make interesting articles if it could be sourced ("responses to feminism in modern american culture" or "books lamenting these kids today" or "books critiquing the trend du jour"). --lquilter 16:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep notable and reviewed (regular press) book. JJL 19:45, 12 October 2007 (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.