Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proletarian Nights : the workers dream in Nineteenth Century France


 * 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The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter  (chat)  @ 22:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Proletarian Nights : the workers dream in Nineteenth Century France

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable book. No independent refs. No evidence of meeting WP:NBOOK. PROD removed by creator who said it was a classic based on claims made on the publishers' website (see talk page). Also pointed to this review which appears to be a strongly partisan website rather than a mainstream reviewer of books. Google books gives 13 hits for the term "Proletarian Nights" including some hits which are not about the book. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I nuked pretty much all of the previous incarnation. It's written like a personal essay and has a lot of OR in it. I did notice that the original title was "Nights of Labor" and I'm getting some hits from that, so this might be a keep. Might. I'm going to see what I can find as well as move it to the correct name.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Once I dug and found the original title of the first English release, I managed to find quite a few journals about the book. The article still needs more work, but I would highly recommend that the original editor not use his personal essay on the book word for word and that he or she be more neutral and encyclopedic about it. If I've got the correct guy and I'm positive I do, then he does appear to be someone that could be considered an authority on the subject as he's a professor at the University of Westminister but there is a bit of neutrality and potential conflict of interest since he'd be quoting himself quite liberally. I recommend getting someone to help from WikiProject Philosophy or WikiProject Sociology just to keep everything on the up and up. There's more out there source-wise, I just have to keep digging to get at it since the book isn't really something that's covered in the more mainstream sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If anyone can speak French, I found a mention of the original text in a French journal. Of course I speak no French and Google Translate can't translate this document. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Proletarian Nights, the title of the new Verso English edition, is a more literal translation of the original French edition - La nuit des proletaires - than the title of the first English edition Nights of Labour. A colleague suggests this title might have been used because of a USA resonance to Nights of Labor. Confusing I know but I think the new title is a more accurate translation of the original. I think you have unnecessarily diminished my summary/synopsis. An significant book needs to be represented with more detailed and interesting content or Wikipedia just becomes very bland. Szczels (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The point behind me removing it was because it read like your original research, which it was. You might be someone who obviously knows what they're talking about, but that does not remove the fact that it is original research. You have to be exceedingly careful when it comes to you quoting yourself, as comes close to being non-neutral, original research, and looking like it's a place to promote your own personal essay of the book. I know that you mean well, but you've really really got to be careful about this. It might seem "bland" but you've got to understand that it must also be encyclopedic and well sourced. If you have sources (even if you wrote them) you could potentially use them, but I highly recommend that you go through someone in one of the various WikiProjects in order to get around any potential COI and to avoid the risk of you giving yourself undue weight. I don't mean this to sound overly harsh, but when you selfquote and use your own research it almost always comes across as original research and self-promotion. Please read up on WP:SELFCITE, WP:OR, WP:SELFPUB, WP:NPOV. You've got to be very, very careful when putting your own stuff and opinions into articles, whether it's sourced or not.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I take your point. and thanks for all the formatting work etc. The page looks good as a beginning. Its about time there was something up about this book. Szczels (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Looks like there are plenty of sources and it satisfies GNG. The article just needs some improvement. —JmaJeremy  ✆  ✎  02:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdraw The current article is about completely different thing with a different title. It's now clear that it's notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2012 (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.