Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That's Not What I Meant!


 * 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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That's Not What I Meant!
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not appear to pass WP:NBOOK - no references to reviews in major publications, or evidence of any of the other criteria for notability. Appears to be written as self-promotion or otherwise as an advertisement. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 26.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - It has reviews up at both Publishers Weekly and Kirkus, which is very often considered enough to pass WP:NBOOK at AFD. Both are on the short side, though, so it would be nice if additional reviews could be located. Rorshacma (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: the Publishers' Weekly page includes a link to buy the book, so I don't think it can truly be counted as independent: it reads to me more like a blurb/advertisement than a review. Agreed re. the Kirkus review, though it is rather brief. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Sexuality and gender,  and Social science.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that the Publisher's Weekly isn't a RS. The Kirkus one, ok. Weak delete unless we can find another solid review. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This but it's paywalled for me. Unsure how long the review is. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like an article discussing/applying its methods rather than a review per se; I'm not an expert here, but I think a case based on that would have to go through WP:NACADEMIC and assess the book's impact as academic/scholarly literature rather than popular. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC) (struck; see below) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So is one good review, one iffy review and a scholarly journal applying its methods enough for GNG? I really don't know. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure either, but I definitely wasn't right about WP:ACADEMIC - that applies to people, not books. I guess I'm at weak either way at the moment, but more reviews would certainly settle the matter. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as explained in my above comment is my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: if those sources are going to form part of a justification for the article's existence, they should be added to it. A footnote of 'Reviews of the book' with straightforward links is sometimes useful here: see notes 18 and 19 in Emily Hauser, which came about through a similar process. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree b just checking ... I think you need to strike your weak delete !vote. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Oaktree b (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Notability (books) says: "A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."  The book review notes: "I disagree with this hypothesis; I believe it to be a valid description of communication only in persons who are extremely insecure and lacking in self-confidence. ... I suspect that this book is in some ways the product of strong pressures from agent, editor, and publisher, who did their best to convince T that a linguistics book for the general public should contain very little linguistics. I would enjoy seeing her write a book on this subject, or a related one, which did not suffer from the constraints those pressures impose on an author."  The book review notes: "This book has come out of her observations, and she notes a number of barriers to bliss, such as some of us expressing things indirectly, a disaster when one is trying to reach somebody accustomed to bluntness. ... She also delves into what could be the most controversial aspect of the book, her assertion that there are male/female differences in communication. ... This is obviously oversimplification for the self-help book audience and Tannen knows it, although, in a communications lapse of her own, she buries her realization in a footnote at the back of the book ..."  The book review notes: "An international bestseller in the best tradition - a do it yourself guide to conversational style. If you have a problem in making yourself understood, or a desire for a classy turn of phrase then Deborah Tannen's little book is the guide you need. Although written to explain why we find it so difficult to talk to the "opposite sex" and discusses heterosexual misunderstandings, That's Not What I Meant will no doubt be of interest to many lesbians and gays who find talking to each other problematic." <li> The paper notes: "This paper will focus on certain concepts presented in Deborah Tannen's book That's Not What I Meant, analyze them from a linguistic and a behavioral perspective, and compare the relative utility of the two approaches. In That's Not What I Meant, Tannen's basic premise is that people have different conversational styles and these different styles lead to misunderstandings and disrupted relationships. ... In her book, Tannen describes certain elements of conversational style and illus- trates how individual differences in these areas can lead to misunderstandings. One important element identified by linguists is known as "indirectness.""</li> <li> The review notes: "Part pop psychology, part sociology and part anthropology, this book by a linguistics professor at Georgetown University focuses on the uncomfortable moments when a conversation inexplicably breaks down, and suggests how such awkwardness can be avoided."</li> <li> The review notes: "Tannen's strengths are in pinpointing the dilemma, but when it comes to giving advice, she falters. In fact, the problem with a book like this is that the reader, if he takes it seriously, will come away paralyzed into speechlessness; the random ""um"" or ""ah"" carries too much weight."</li> <li> The article notes: "Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., would tell us to blame cultural differences between the sexes. In "That's Not What I Meant!" (William Morrow and Co., $12.95), Tannen explores the multitudes of misunderstandings that people encounter in conversation. Tannen draws from her own experience and that of her students. She cites, for example, the breakdown in husband–wife communication that led to her divorce."</li> <li> The article notes: "Life is a matter of dealing with other people, and that means a series of conversations. "That's Not What I Meant" will assure that when conversations seem to be causing more problems than you're solving, you aren't losing your mind."</li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow That's Not What I Meant! to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.