Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rude Britain


 * 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   no consensus. Now that the copyvio issues have been resolved. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Rude Britain

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I'm not that sure that this book meets WP:NBOOKS; only a handful of sources exist, the authors are not notable, the book doesn't appear to be influential and I don't believe it has won any awards. I thought I would bring it here for a wider audience. Thanks,  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 17:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It has been reviewed. Although not substantial, other coverage is more than trivial., , . -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete This is not an article about the book itself. It's a thinly disguised "List of dirty-sounding place names in Britain" and a copyright violation whereby one skims the cream off the top of someone else's labour and investment.  Why buy the book if I can read the Top 30 names here?  It's no defense to say, "But we didn't list all 100" or "We told you where we took it from".  Mandsford 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Err... this isn't an argument for deletion. It's an argument for a heavy-handed edit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.195.36 (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm fairly certain that plagiarism, ripoffs, and possible copyright violations are all good reasons for deletion... Mandsford 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of a copyright violation in the article. Please link to a website that it is copyvio'ed from. Listing the top 30 is also not plagiarism or a ripoff. Silver  seren C 17:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - copyright violations don't have to involve other websites at all. --bonadea contributions talk 13:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - There's no need to list the "top n" listings. An example or two would suffice. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep From what I was able to find, it looks like the book is notable, but the article does need to be rewritten. I would say that listing the top ten would be appropriate, but 30 is a bit much. And it does appear that some editors to it were just trying to fit in as many bad words as they could. But, like has been said, nothing that some editing can't fix. Silver  seren C 17:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I've heard of this book IRL on the other side of the pond, but I'm not certain of exactly where, except that word of the book must have come through the first option for WP:NBOOKS. This doesn't look like plagiarism or a ripoff; the book contains explanations and etymologies for each listing.  If anything, this reads like a partial table of contents -- not exactly grand copyright theft.  I will conceed that 30 is perhaps excessive, but as a person using the article for research I found some of the links in the 11-30 range to be useful.  Jaqphule (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * — Jaqphule (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 14:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a newly registered user. I mainly came here to argue against a page's deletion, not the least of which is because I found it useful.  I have since gone and started entering some of the other AfD debates. Jaqphule (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The book fails WP:BOOK. Of the three reviews linked in the first Keep !vote only one, the NYT one, is more than a trivial mention, and the asylum.co.uk site does not look like a good source at all. The top-30 list had to go in either case, for copyright reasons. --bonadea contributions talk 13:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The top-30 list clearly falls into Fair Use for the scant information listed (little more than headings). I do think a top-30 list is overkill; perhaps the article should list only those to which there are currently linked wiki entries? Jaqphule (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether the places have Wikipedia articles or not doesn't change the notability for the book, though. And a list of "rude" (in some people's eyes) place names in Britain is out of place in an article about the book - it would be appropriate in an article about rude place-names, but such an article would almost by default be either original research or plagiarism from that book. Unless there is actual research with reliable sources about place names with rude interpretations, that kind of list just doesn't fulfil the criteria for inclusion, as I interpret those criteria. (Others may disagree, of course.) --bonadea contributions talk 14:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Original research? The list is sourced by the book itself.  Not that it appears to matter; the top-30 list has been sliced off.  Jaqphule (talk) 01:10, 1 June 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.