Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History Upside Down


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. as there is disagreement among editors on whether the reviews that exist are sufficient to meet WP:NBOOKS. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

History Upside Down

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This book does not obviously pass WP:NBOOKS. No scholarly reviews have obviously percolated through to Google Scholar, and the one review posted to the page is from Middle East Forum, a polemical think tank that has been deemed an unreliable source. In any case, that is all of one review. If there are more reviews out there (and any from actually reliable sources), I have not found them. The only other sources on the page are the publisher and the book itself. The page was established in 2010 by an account that, by want of subsequent activity, was clearly an SPA that one might imagine likely had a COI in producing the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel,  and Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NBOOKS. I searched for reviews and also found only the capsule review from Middle East Forum. Jfire (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete bordering on WP:SPEEDY as likely but unproven WP:PROMO. There does not seen to be any WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG rationale for this article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Clarifying - Regarding the article itself, it seems to violate WP:PROMO and possibly WP:CONFLICT (the latter of which is extremely difficult for an individual editor to confirm). Regarding the subject, the reviews do not seem to meet the standard that WP:NBOOK is striving for. The only peg on which to hang notability is WP:BOOKCRIT 1 (emphases added), two or more non-trivial published works... This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. Since all we have are reviews, it comes down to the meaning of 'non-trivial'. Encounter is a book seller, so the 'review' is simply advert copy; it cannot be used to establish WP:GNG any more than the dust jacket of the book itself. MEQ is extremely tenuous as a WP:RS, especially on topics such as polemical works that match their rather extreme ideological bent. The cites found by  and  seem (to me) to be similar in nature and equally problematic for establishing notability. That leaves us with ASMEA which is questionably a RS (see analysis by  below), but is it a non-trivial review? After reading it a few times, I don't think so. But even giving it the benefit of the doubt, I would expect to see at least one more from outside the echo-chamber of the fringe where this work resides. A month into the discussion, I simply do not find the Keep !votes convincing on this one. Sorry & Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, as this book passes WP:NBOOKS, which requires that "the book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works." The first review was in the Middle East Forum's Middle East Quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal that is indexed by major indexing databases. The second independent review is here. In addition, according to Google Scholar, the book has been cited no fewer than 16 times by other independent scholars, who clearly believe its credible. Not the highest profile book, but meets Wikipedia requirements. Longhornsg (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, even if you are counting the MEQ, which is more a pseudo-academic journal run by an advocacy organization, it is still is no more than a capsule review. That other review is meanwhile a mere web review with no more intrinsic value as a blog post. That is an organization's website, not a publisher or editorial outlet with scholarly or editorial pedigree. That is absolutely scraping the barrel in terms of WP:NBOOKS. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Iskandar323, no need to be insulting. The WP:NBOOKS states that the book is the subject of two or more non-trivial works. That's it. There's not a minimum word count, requirement that the works are scholarly outlets, or be the Washington Post. Nor that the outlets be completely free of bias (lord knows this standard would disqualify half the citations in the I/P sphere). The outlets should be independent of the publisher or author -- which they are. And the mentions must be non-trivial -- which they are. But interesting that you do not believe that a review published on an academic society's website is enough. Keep in mind, we're building an encyclopedia for the public, and not for academia. Longhornsg (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. I insulted no one, so don't go impugning anyone else either. WP:NBOOKS intentionally sets a fairly low bar of several non-shit sources, but non-shit sources are indeed what are required, at least in my interpretation. I definitely don't see it as a box ticking exercise where any old moldy sock of a source qualifies, job done. Quality counts. And no, I wouldn't rate the 2007 Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa particularly highly at all (it's page is in a pretty dire state of affairs itself). It is the 1966 Middle East Studies Association, the organization that it split from (apparently on ideological grounds), that is the outlet with the more serious academic pedigree. But even so, I wouldn't just rate random blog posts from the latter's website either. Yes, I expect serious reviews to have passed either editorial or peer review. (And not be unreliable, like MEQ.) Iskandar323 (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * you are being extremeley disrespectful with the words your using and the way you are using them. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Çomment Article is certainly WP:PROMO at present (noting WP:NEXIST however). FWIW text appears to have been reviewed in Volume 62-63 of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies Journal "Jewish Affairs" (p.54) by Gary Selikow. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. No doubt that this book is controversial. That's not a reason to delete. Sufficient sources were identified above. Plus there was SIGCOV in a major Israeli news source. I look it up again later. gidonb (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Commment Well, the book has a chapter cited here:, the Jewish Policy Centre here , and this Times of Israel blog . This in Moment magazine ... Oaktree b (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Most of the sourcing is from the Jewish world/perspective, so it is biased. The book has just enough to pass notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * just becaus eit is from jewish perspective does not make it biased PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The reviews are one-sided, but so long as the article here is neutral, it's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconding 's comment; the problem is not Jewish perspectives, it's that the book and reviews are a right wing echo chamber. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Added another review clearly meets WP:NBOOK --Shrike (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep found two more reviews, although one is quite short, it offers a more critical perspective.


 * Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I see that the MEQ reference was already discussed, I'll strike that. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to a weak keep - with the reviews from "Reference and Research Book News" and Simpson, there's just enough to balance the echo chamber reviews. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2023 (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.