Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Sea of Sterile Mountains: The Chinese in British Columbia


 * 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) 01:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

In the Sea of Sterile Mountains: The Chinese in British Columbia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While I like this book and its contents, it does not meet WP:NBOOK parameters:
 * "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself" - the reviews provided are not notable reviews, and two of them at least refer only to t he book itself, not to other sources
 * "The book has won a major literary award" It has not won a major literary award
 * "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement" - the very sources/reviews added by the article creator indicate anything but. In fact, this book is on the grey edge of modern historiography on this subject, in that it is ignored by modern historians; not because its contents are invalid, but because it doesn't have modern-style line-cites and presumes to present the political realities of non-Chinese, which the ethno-histories favoured by the article creator explicitly do not, other than by POV language dismissals and selective tidbits of "things white people said".  None of the reviewers used are notable or significant themselves.
 * "The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[5] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country" - this book may have been part of a course at one of BC's university long ago; it's not now, not that I know of.
 * "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." - no he's not historically significant; more like obscure

That the thrust of the author's selection of comments from the reviews provided is POV and hostile to the book, as is apparently the author who created this article, this article seems to have been created to discredit the book; that this person hasn't even read the book, despite repeated recommendations that he do so, as he could get it on interlibrary loan, and that he's been demanding page-cites on each and every thing I bring up that I know to be in it, is AGF and also a nuisance as he knows I don't a copy of the book and am 10,000 miles or more from anywhere that might have a copy.

I had a look at Category:History books about Canada and none of the major works of BC history - notable and significant ones - do not have articles. This book is rare, out-of-print, and what few reviews there are have big POV/bias issues, it's not a notable or significant work. BUT it does contain details and perspectives which are sorely absent from sino-biased works and also from a fair representation in the negative reviews that have been found; for that, in a historian's terms, it is notable; but it's not in Wikipedia terms, and right now the article is something of a POV palimpsest against the book. Instead of finding dismissive reviews to deride it, the author should READ IT.Skookum1 (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)}}


 * Keep - The book clearly meets WP:GNG - that requires multiple reliable and independent sources. There are two academic book reviews from the 1970s and the University of Alberta historiography document from the 2000s. If it meets GNG it has notability period. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply - the guideline says "two or more non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself", italics emphasis mine. None are notable reviews or notable publications or authors, and their source is only the book (and their own prejudices against what it says).Skookum1 (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What is meant is independent of the book itself is that the reviews themselves are not a part of the book. They are about the book but not a part of it. Of course the author is using the book as a source, but that doesn't mean the reviews are actually dependent on the book in that way. When we write articles about films, we include reviews.
 * As for the publications, from my understanding academic publications should be notable. The Journal of Asian Studies has its own Wikipedia page. BC Studies and Past Imperfect (journal) do not but I can check with the Journals WikiProject： Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals.
 * The RX page found one more review from Books in Canada so now it's up to three reviews.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So far on the WikiProject discussion, the respondent believes BC Studies is a reliable source (See the editorial board) but that Past Imperfect may be tricky to use because (at least at one time) the editors were PhD students. The current website states to see each issue to determine who the editorial team was. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The 2005 Past Imperfect Issue had this editorial board - Roberta Lexier was the editor. The advisory board has "Dr." titles but the staff don't. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The nom cites NBOOKS, but only the "in a nutshell" template at the top, which stated "published works whose sources are independent of the book itself". If you go down to the criteria itself, this phrase says "published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself", which is not really the same thing (I have corrected this). Having just received the second book review in a peer-reviewed academic journal of one of my own books (which I am proud of but don't feel is particularly notable), I find NBOOKS very permissive. Nevertheless, that's the guideline and we have to apply it. Here we have multiple detailed book reviews in reliable sources, so NBOOKS basically becomes irrelevant, as this meets GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (babble)  @ 21:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (say)  @ 21:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (message)  @ 21:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This book meets WP:NBOOK as it has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself (as WhisperToMe has pointed out, the nominator has misunderstood what is meant by sources independent of the book). Also, the nominator says "this book may have been part of a course at one of BC's university long ago; it's not now, not that I know of." If it ever was, that would make it notable as well. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 23:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as it passes WP:NBOOK, per the above comments. -- Calidum  03:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply to both the above. It doesn't pass NBOOK.  And saying I don't understand "sources independent of the book" is entirely wrong; only one cite mentions other works; it has won no awards, the author is not independently notable or significant, it's not a significant work, and the "if" about it having been a curriculum book (very likely not) is just an IF.Skookum1 (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read my above comment on NBOOKS#1 again. Your interpretation is based on incorrect text in the "in a nutshell" template of that guideline, not the guideline itself. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep .Clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Book reviews from academic journals are generally considered reliable and independent. The fact that these reviews use the book as referencing only means they are secondary sources, which is exactly what we need.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:NQ stated that there are three additional reviews but he hasn't found how to get them online. I am adding them to WP:RX. I would really appreciate getting these since getting all of the perspectives that have been published is very important. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is kind of tricky, but I'd say the reviews are independent of the book as defined by WP:NBOOK (have a look at the footnotes, they're informative), especially since they're academic, and there are also a fair number of them which increases the likelihood of notability.  Someone who was "involved with the book" sounds like it would have been someone involved in the publishing rather than someone who just happened to write an original interpretation of it.  Also, the subtitle should be removed from the title per WP:SUBTITLE.   ekips 39 05:43, 4 January 2015 (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.