Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mine Seed


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  10:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Mine Seed

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mine Seed is a historical novel recognized as both literature and a contribution to anthracite and labor history. It has been reviewed and archived beyond the claims of local. Nationally known historian Howard Zinn (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/28zinn.htm) reviewed Mine Seed as “a powerful story…something extraordinary in literature.” Richard Rousseau, editor of the University of Scranton Press called it a “valuable record.”
 * Delete: Non-notable. Minimal coverage outside very localized area/POV/area of interest. Self-published.  No major reviews in widely circulate venues. Anmccaff (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: No coverage; minimal attention otherwise. Vanity published. Esquivalience  t 21:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete:

Mine Seed is referenced in ''Anthracite! An Anthology of Coal Region Drama''. Mosley, Philip, ed. University of Scranton Press, 2006. P. 338. with other notable anthracite fiction writers. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/bookdistributed/A/books/distributed/A/bo3775640


 * This is simply untrue; Mine Seed isn't mentioned there. see below The anthologist and editor of Anthracite! did review it, but in a local on-line publication called the Anthracite History Journal.  This publication no longer exists, although the last editor is thinking of bringing it back online.  Some parts of it, including this review, are "Waybacked;" see [| Mosley review of Mine See].  You'll see that this is a local author being interviewed in a local, specialized online publication.  Anmccaff (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Better check your facts again, anmccaff. Mine Seed is referenced on p. 338 of Mosley's Anthracite!, to say otherwise is untrue. To give you the benefit of the doubt, you are either mistaken or you haven't looked at p. 338.St o&#39;hara (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara


 * That's your "cite?" A "see also" on a backmost page bibliography?  My apologies to the others for missing it, but that's hardly a point in favor of notability.

Mine Seed is also held in the collections of historical archives and university libraries, including but not limited to: the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, (http://discover.hsp.org/Record/marc-283853/D) the Pennsylvania State University, among others and is internationally referenced: in (http://www.worldcat.org/title/mine-seed/oclc/51823897) (https://www.worldcat.org/


 * Again, a falsehood. There are only  two entries on Worldcat.  Three books total, of which only one can circulate. Two, one circulation, in Scranton, the author's...and the wikitor who wrote this article's ...hometown.  The other 150 miles down Interstate 80 in State College. That's it.  World(-cat) wide. Three books.  One to circulate. Anmccaff (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not false. My entry is simply  to show that Mine Seed is archived in state-wide archives and state-wide university libraries. I gave two examples readily found online: The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania State University main library at State College, PA. Copies held as reference material don’t circulate. Some of the other libraries listed on Worldcat show the book circulates. Why you are saying it does not, I don't know. Many historical archives are not online. Not all libraries are listed on Worldcat--so how many libraries (or other sites) actually hold copies of Mine Seed for circulation or for reference is unknown. St o&#39;hara (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara


 * As I wrote, and anyone else can confirm, there simply aren't other citations on WorldCat, and the fact that something is found in WorldCat does not, in itself, make it notable.

Links (see below) to other writings by Dailey published in national and notable publications: Counterpunch, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair; Voices in The Wilderness edited by multiple Nobel Peace Prize nominee Kathy Kelly, and the Village Voice (which were deleted from article by the editor that proposed the article for deletion) are more proof of the notability beyond local notability of the author and this book. St o&#39;hara (talk)St. o'hara


 * Dailey wrote two articles for the online part of Counterpunch; which is to say, she wrote two articles that are pretty much "letters to the editor." The online side of Counterpunch is, essentially, a minimally curated open blog.  Very different from the newsletter proper, which, whatever you might think of it, has some weight.


 * Counterpunch is a respected online journal edited by the late Alexander Cockburn, a highly regarded writer and journalist, and Jeffrey St. Clair. It is not a "blog" or "minimally curated" and its contents are not equivalent to  "letters to the editor." Many prominent writers, journalists, economists, commentators, and so forth are selected for publication there. St o&#39;hara (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara


 * This was discussed on the Reliable sources board [| here]; the strong consensus was that this was not a reliable source, unlike the paper/pdf version. It's a lot like the difference between the SF Examiner and examiner.com.  Anmccaff (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Zinn's quotation can only be sourced to the advertising of the self-published book.


 * That’s from an advance review by Howard Zinn. Not sure if you are trying to discredit the veracity of Howard Zinn, the author, or others, like University of Scranton Press editor Richard Rousseau, who is also credited with vetting Mine Seed. St o&#39;hara (talk)St. o'hara


 * Yes, as listed by the seller, Amazon, from the writer. Of a self-published book.  Advertising.


 * The Nobel folks only release info about nominees fifty years after the award, so claiming that someone is "Nobel nominated" has its own issues. Again, notice the misleading writing: "two basic ones," instead of a more honest "two only ones".  Anmccaff (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, please check your facts, anmccaff. There’s nothing misleading in what I wrote. The Nobel nominees’ names can be released by the nominators. In fact, Kathy Kelly had been nominated three times for the Nobel Peace Prize as referenced below (from Kathy Kelly):


 * American Friends Service Committee (1947 laureate) nomination for the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize[40]
 * Nomination by 1976 Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire for the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.[41]
 * Anonymous nomination for the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize[42]
 * [40]"AFSC Nominates Dennis Halliday and Kathy Kelly for 2000 Nobel Peace Prize". American Friends Service Committee Magazine. May 2000.
 * [41]Runkel, Phil (Summer 2007). "Marquette University has Acquired the Records of Voices in the Wilderness". Archivists.org.
 * [42]Mellgren, Doug (January 31, 2003). "Nobel Prize Nominations Stream into Oslo". Associated Press.      St o&#39;hara

{talk) 17:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara


 * Mellgren's piece does not contain an "anonymous" nomination of Kelly, but an assertion that the AFSC had nominated "Women in Black". [] Check out page 8A.


 * The Nobel committee prohibits leaks, and refuses to confirm them. What actions they may take against nominators who flout their rules is unknown to me, but I can't think of a -single- leaked nominee who got the award, ever.  Can you?


 * I can also see no way to actually confirm that the organizations did formally nominate, at least not for another 40 years.


 * ...and, finally, this has nothing to do with the article directly, does it? Anmccaff (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 15:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This back and forth between Anmccaff and St. o'hara reads like a battle of wills. I'm coming down on the side of Delete. Despite the opinions of reviewers and this books presence in various academic libraries, if there was convincing evidence of a notable impact within the anthracite mining community or the fields of history or literature (beyond being name checked in references) then maybe it would deserve a wikipedia entry. But the article reads, as the nominator points out, with a POV purpose . Also, it's ridiculous to claim notability with a link (e.g. Amazon) that merely serves to verify the books existence. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * St o&#39;hara (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara: To ShelbyMarion, et al. I was responding to the aforementioned Wiki editor’s deletions of facts and their sources which I had posted-- some of which he deleted without reading, as well as his misrepresentations of facts, editorializing, and personal attacks. I replied to this editor’s points in the standard scholarly response when a subject is being debated.


 * “Mine Seed” is a book recommended highly by the eminent historian Howard Zinn; it is also a standard in anthracite history references, etc. and written by a woman. It was tagged as both a portal to literature and anthracite history and is noted in anthracite history and literature-- as anyone caring to research will see. Wikipedia has been criticized for under representing women in literature and articles. Is there a gender bias here against this article?  Wikipedia has acknowledged its gender bias and is apparently, attempting to address it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia


 * Having said all that I am now in favor of deleting this article, however, as I have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is unreliable as a valid reference and I will no longer recommend people use it—-quite the opposite—-for the following reasons (which I will also add to discussions of the unreliability of Wikipedia) cited below for anyone  reading  here who may be  concerned about the  future of Wikipedia:


 * As research shows, Wikipedia is considered untrustworthy by many, even a joke, and is called unreliable in academic circles because of its lack of fact checking, its biases including-- gender bias, its editors with agendas pedaling their own viewpoints, and an often hostile editing environment. Reliability and scholarship  lose to  editors with little to no knowledge of  content being able to delete information at will and by committee, and bad faith editors destroying content instead of working to build a better encyclopedia.


 * “Many good intentioned contributors end up resigning Wikipedia due to others who like making it into a battleground for the “most correct” appliance of norms. This can lead to a rigid and slow adapting organization, which would eventually cause the end of it.” –Juliana Brunello “Response to Jaron Lanier’s Digital Maoism.” http://networkcultures.org/cpov/resources/resources_in_english/response-to-jaron-lanier-digital-maoism/


 * One example, Wikipedia is hamstrung by misapplications of rules like “notability”—where being notable is narrowly defined by “being notable” as defined by ad hoc committees and voted on--even by sock puppets. So being a “celebrity” automatically gives notability even if it is for arcane and idiotic things—of which Wikipedia is full. However, “celebrity” does not equal  “authority” or relevance. Incorrect application of  Wikipedia rules means that  authentic creative and /or scholarly works and contributions and references can be  too easily jettisoned by editors, who may be bad faith editors, people with other points of view, or people simply lacking knowledge of content and subjects they delete.


 * I also have to agree with Aaron Halfaker that Wikipedia is on the decline, sharply losing editors, (especially newcomers) since 2007. http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-shows-wikipedias-huge-participation-problem-2013-11  I have increasingly seen information manipulated by a sort of popularity contest; editors gang up on contributors and delete references without reading them, ad hominem attacks, defamations and libels go unchecked, and so on.  This certainly has led to a decline in the quality and reputation of Wikipedia as it drives out good editors, and volunteers and monetary contributions. St o&#39;hara (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara


 * 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.