Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No, Ma'am, That's Not History


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Ma'am, That's Not History
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The subject is not sufficiently notable for its own article and has been tagged since November 2009. The article concerns an obscure pamphlet rebutting a book, that is already discussed in the article about the book itself. CO GDEN  18:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Hugh Nibley, the author. As there are incoming links and it's discussed in a few articles it shouldn't be deleted outright.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this attention also suggest that the article may even be expanded? __meco (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The very few incoming links to this article are pretty trivial. Though the pamphlet has been cited in passing in a few academic works focusing on the much more notable book by Fawn Brodie, in my view the pamphlet doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NBOOK. I'm not aware of any non-trivial discussion of this pamphlet that is directed to a general audience, or that contains "sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." The only thing ever really said about the pamphlet is that it is a 62-page acerbic criticism of Brodie's book by a prominent Mormon apologist, and I don't think that's enough information to really support a Wikipedia article. CO GDEN  18:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. There doesn't seem to be anything that needs to be merged, and this article does not seem to meet notability requirements. –  j ak s mata  13:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But since there are incoming links, a redirect to the author is simpler.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see opinions to delete as consistent with changing to a redirect, unless somebody specifically says "delete with no redirect". There's a question of which article it would redirect to, though. I have no problem with changing it to a redirect, but would it be to Hugh Nibley or No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith? I would probably slightly favor the latter, but Cuchullain, if you have a definite opinion in favor of the Nibley article, I'll go along with that. CO GDEN  18:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Either target would be fine in my opinion. It seems more natural to me to redirect to the author, but given that it was written in direct response to No Man Knows My History, that would be fine too.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to make things "simple", nor am I voting consistent with changing to a redirect - my opinion is that this article should be deleted, and that incoming links should be changed to non-linked text. If I meant "redirect", I would have said so. If a link is needed to something, it should directly mention the author (of the book or the booklet). Besides, there aren't that many links - I'll volunteer to do the cleanup myself if the article gets deleted. BTW, I think the redirect No Ma'am, That's Not History should be deleted too. –   j ak s mata  20:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm down with either decision, personally. For the benefit of Cuchullain, let me just note that even if we delete the redirects as well, there will still be a link to Hugh Nibley near the vicinity of the original No Ma'am, That's Not History link, and Jaksmata is right, there really are not very many of these. I guess the question is, if we can't come to a consensus between these two options, what do we do? Nobody has yet expressed the view that the article should remain as-is. CO GDEN  18:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m o ɳ o  03:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete over-detailed--it gets at most a line or a footnote in the article on the work being criticized. There are probably a few dozen book reviews in all of literary history at most which are individually notable, and this is very far from being one of them. the article on Brodie, btw, needs some attention to NPOV--it is too judgmental--see in particular the lede's note on her bio of Nixon.  DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Non-notable pamphlet criticizing another book. Could be redirected to the author, Nibley - in whose article it currently has a sentence which seems like all it deserves. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2010 (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.