Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massutmaning


 * 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Massutmaning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article should be deleted because it's not notable enough. There is already a Wikipedia page for the author of the book, the existence of which already skirts the threshold for notability and has a tag for having been written by someone suspected of close affiliation with the author. There is no reason why a separate article should be created for one of the author's books. The text on the book is two short paragraphs, and the eight sources are all Swedish reviews of the book. No reviews in English have been cited, and it's unclear how this book is notable. I'd also like to note that the account that created the article was created a few days ago and has only edited the page of the author and created the page for his book. The user has been blocked for edit warring. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's very notable in Sweden as well as Norway and has a Swedish page. The author is an recognized economist and researcher and is well known both in Sweden and in other Nordic countries. Your veiled insults and implications that I, as a new contributor, can't POSSIBLY be trusted to edit articles is laughable and shameful at the same time. GreenManXY (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to note that the author has a PhD in public policy, not economics. Note that it matters much: we don't create an article for every book by an academic that happens to have gotten a few reviews. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I get it, you don't agree with the book and with the facts the author presents. This doesn't make you the arbiter of what is notable or not. A book that has been discussed on every major channel in Sweden as well as in most major newspapers is a notable book, regardless of your dislike of the facts. GreenManXY (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 16.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * References 1, 3 and 8 appear to be about the book, from independent reliable sources (I am not including anything by the author in major Swedish media defending his book). What's more there's a good reference on the book from Sveriges Radio on the Swedish wiki article. This article in its current form presents criticism of the book, so it's hardly a puff piece. Seems to me we have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and specifically the first criterion of WP:BK. Keep. That said, a merge would be fine with me, too. Properly categorize the redirect page and really nothing of value would be lost. per WP:Preserve. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The book is more notable than the author. I've purposefully created a separate article for the book to separate criticism of the facts presented in the book from the author himself. Especially since the original section was labeled "Controversy", as if to imply that the author himself is controversial. There is no controversy. Those who dislike the facts in the book and have criticism, should be summarized in the article regarding the book. GreenManXY (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - per good sourcing from independent ref points. Per Book notability overall. BabbaQ (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This is an extremely important and notable book that deserves its own wiki page. David A (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: We don't require English sources – no encyclopedia writing about the entire world can rely on one language to get the information it needs. We merely prefer English sources over non-English sources when they're of equal quality and relevance. As for the book, it's certainly been one of the most notable books (the most notable book?) in the Swedish political debate so far this year, including plenty of criticism leveled towards it. Whether the article subject will mean it'll have any sort of persistence in the public mind is a different question, and difficult to answer right now, of course, but I certainly think it passes the first criterion in Notability (books), and is an non-insignificant piece of the puzzle of explaining Swedish political debate in the late 2010s. Which isn't necessarily a good thing, but that's not really relevant here. /Julle (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Arguments about its significance are emotive WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Arguments for potential persistence are WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia's role is not pre-emptive, particularly where the impetus for creating an article smacks of borderline WP:PROMO for both the author and the book in question. The fact that we're arguing "other stuff" speaks to a shaky case verifiability, not notability. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of the arguments are emotive. I find it very difficult to see how this would be about verifiability, looking at the sources (even though Nyheter Idag is one of them, which Swedish Wikipedia usually avoids citing). But the sources speak pretty well for themselves, I think. Are you familiar with what being discussed for months in Expressen, Aftonbladet, Dagens Nyheter and Svenska Dagbladet means in terms of notability in Swedish politics? Those are the four major newspapers with nation-wide distribution in the country. /Julle (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of discussions in these yellow press/tabloid publications (and op-ed pieces at that), and will remind you that Wikipedia is WP:NOT, and that a handful of articles does not constitute more than headline disputes, nor does it demonstrate any form of persistence. By those standards, it does not meet WP:BKCRIT as you suggest. It's verifiable, not notable. I would agree with 's second suggestion that criticism and support may be accommodated in the article on the author. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Er, let's avoid slinging mud, especially inaccurately. Dagens Nyheter and Svenska Dagbladet are the two leading 'serious' national broadsheet dailies of Sweden. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This book clearly meets our notability guideline for books, since it has been reviewed and debated in many of the major media outlets in Sweden. This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly to merge later. Notable book by a notable author and a sufficiently sourced article. (In general, I do not see the point of breaking out a single work from the total body of work of an author, when he or she has been otherwise active in discussing the same issues. But this goes for many other authors with Wikipedia articles and this one should not be treated differently.) --Hegvald (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, sufficient reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2017 (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.