Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversial non-fiction books

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

List of controversial non-fiction books
This list is arbitrary, or to highlight the problem leading to VfD, it's original research.
 * Keep It's a very interesting read, and there are so many things that link here!  --User:220.236.61.128 15:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and clarify somewhere that it is not a good idea to start such lists. --Pjacobi 22:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Hard for such a thing to avoid being PoV. Maybe if each entry on the list cited media accounts of a cotroversy over that item... DES 22:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per the recent CFD of category:controversial books. Dunc|&#9786; 22:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: the CFD debate ended in no consensus. (See discussion.) Flowerparty talk 23:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Poorly defined and subjective with no concrete criterion for inclusion. Flowerparty talk 23:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting and informative. CanadianCaesar 23:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no "research" involved in noting that something is controversial. --malathion talk 00:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Many non-fiction books are controversial to one degree or another.  Inclusion on a list like this is entirely arbitrary.  Kaibabsquirrel 05:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, arbitrary and subjective, per nominator. Quale 06:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - every non-fiction book can be controversial to somebody for reasons of morality, religion, politics, what have you. Not to mention that many people use the term "controversial" to say, in effect, "I do not like this and you should not either". Otherwise the page should include the reason who considers the stated book controversial and why. The reason that scientists debate about the merits of some book does not necessarily make it controversial. Now the page labels certain books controversial (including Copernicus' De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, displaying clear POV - Skysmith 10:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is poorly defined, but it is interesting. Most of the older books clearly belong on the list because they were important to a paradigm shift of some sort.  The problem is with the newer books, anything written in the last half century at least should have it's place on the list justified in some way.  For example, Michael Moore's books are more inflammatory than controversial, and shouldn't normally make the list.  However, if you add a sentence under the books name such as "This book was dropped by HarperCollins post 9/11 and was only printed after a letter writing campaign by librarians who accused the publisher of censorship", the entry becomes at the same time justified and more informative to the reader.  This would be easy to do for most of the books that truly belong on the list, and at the very least this strategy should be tried before the list is deleted. --AAMiller 12:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vague, prone to edit wars. Pavel Vozenilek 16:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 07:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV, prone to edit wars, duplicates category (although the category misses the years) Alvin-cs | Talk 17:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The existence of controversy about a book can be considered objectively, with cites if needed. -- The Anome 16:51, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Contrary to some assertions, this list is not POV. All of these books have faced either censorship, litigation, or dispute. While the article needs some clarifying, the contents of the list are intriging. -The lorax 19:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A valid list that can be very fun to read when said controversy is cited properly. Lord Bob 06:20, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its a list that I like to read, the controvesies need to be said about each book though. Wikipedia Username 03:59, 2 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.