Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven (book)


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn nomination. Keeper &#448;  76  14:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Raven (book)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This book, upon research, does not appear notable, even though it's about a notable subject. The article, recently created, appears to talk more about the event of the Jonestown massacre than it does the book. I can't find any independent sources that assert definitively that this work of non-fiction is notable (again, the event is notable, without question, but is this recounting of the "story" notable? I think not).The article includes three "sources" that equate to quotes from the author of said book, plus 2 sources about the event, not the book. Keeper &#448;  76  01:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)  Nomination withdrawn based on User:Cirt's work. Slinking away slowly :-)  Keeper  &#448;  76  14:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily satisfies WP:NOTE. The article at present unfortunately does not contain a reception section, but the book has most certainly received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, per WP:NOTE. I was quite quickly able to find reviews and significant discussion in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources including: CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, The New York Times Book Review, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Review of Books, Library Journal, Psychology Today, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, and National Review, among many others. I will work on expanding this article and perhaps getting it up to WP:GA status, but I probably won't be able to get to it for a few days. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cirt for bluelinking the Wikipedia articles for different periodicals. That's only halfway to helpful.  Do you have diffs that show these reviews?  I'll happily retract this nomination, I wasn't able to find any.   Keeper  &#448;  76  01:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not have diffs, because they may not all be online. I will provide the full citations for all of the above to satisfy WP:V so you can verify this coverage. Cirt (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have provided examples of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" on this AfD's talk page. Cirt (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting those book reviews here as well:



There are many more, and I am adding some others directly into the article itself. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Along with the above, the book has also been cited repeatedly in newspaper articles. This this San Francisco Chronicle article is typical:"The turning point in Jones' drive for power came in 1975, according to Tim Reiterman's and John Jacobs' exhaustive study, 'Raven: The Untold Story of the Rev. Jim Jones and his People.'"As well, it's author, journalist Tim Reiterman, is one of the few survivors of the tragedy at Jonestown.  He has, in fact, been interviewed about that experience, including a citation of his book, in numerous Television specials and documentaries, including most recently PBS.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that Reiterman is notable, or the events at Jonestown, by any means. This book that is about the event though.  Has it, specifically, been reviewed?  Found to be notable?  I'm willing to be convinced, but I'm seriously not convinced yet.  Reiterman survived Jonestown.  Hurray!  Jonestown massacre happened.  Boo.  What makes "raven" notable?   Keeper  &#448;  76  01:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is cited by essentially every other major source about Jonestown. It's the most comprehensive book on the subject.


 * Other books on Jonestown state this explicitly, such as Salvation and Suicide:"The best comprehensive history on Jim Jones and Peoples Temple, Tim Reiterman and John Jacob's Raven . .." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosedschurte (talk • contribs)


 * Keep. But clean up POV. An entry about a book shouldn't soapbox nor reference itself per reliable sources. -- Banj e  b oi   01:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the POV is removed, what's left? Has this book been independently reviewed?  Has it "charted" in any recognizable charts?  Is it "prominent" within its (narrow) field?  I don't see what you mean by "remove POV".  What's left?  The whole article is POV.   Keeper  &#448;  76  01:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been independently reviewed, see this AfD's talk page. It is prominent within its field of the study of Peoples Temple. It is heavily cited in other works. I will work to remove any of the perceived POV as well as dependence on the book itself, and rewrite the article relying heavily on the independent coverage in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That was my fault. I started the article and cited Reiterman's own description of his survival in the book figuring that that was the best source for that brief statement.  It has obviously been discussed in many other sources, so I have fixed that by citing two.  The only "Raven" cite left is the one to its own footnotes and sources.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter, I can get to fixing it all, it will just take some time. Cirt (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   —Cirt (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   —Cirt (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —Cirt (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2008 (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.