Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The American Pageant


 * 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. Listed for 12 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The American Pageant

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. It's definitely used as a textbook (I used a version of this book in 1998), but the book itself is not widely used as the subject of teaching, nor does it seem to pass the other notability criteria for books. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As Houghton Mifflin's (and before that Little Brown & Co.'s) American history textbook, editions of this have been used by generations of students, starting in 1956, and it passes WP:GNG. How children are indoctrinated about their nation's history is, needless to say, something that gets praised and criticized by educators .  It's not an exaggeration to say that millions of Americans have been instructed from The American Pageant. Mandsford (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * kEEP Agreed it does seem to be a widely used (if second rate) text book.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- a book (even if poor) that reaches a 12th edition has surely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- I studied from this book 14 years ago (not sure which edition, but before the third author came onboard). It's the only textbook I ever truly enjoyed reading.  The authors wrote beautiful prose with a sharp sense of humor (why oh why don't more text authors do this??), and it made the story come alive.  If the current edition still does this, it would be nice to see it on the wiki entry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acfmajor (talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment. I was about to punch "keep" on this but I couldn't help but notice that the nominator's concerns were not really addressed. Does it or does it not meet WP:NBOOKS? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Even under the book-hating standards of the silly WP:NBOOKS guideline, this passes, having been the subject of another book The American Pageant Revisited.  Too bad it wasn't a TV show.... Mandsford 12:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it still rank as notably as you intend when we consider that this was not a third party writing the book, but rather the original book's author? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:NBOOKS is silly. The lack of guidelines pertaining to such things as how long a book has been in print, how many editions it has been through, how many copies have been sold, etc. is dimwitted.  However, within the section for academic books, there is the caveat that "the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick", and one of the factors looked at as an alternative is "whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions".  More importantly is the admonition that "Again, common sense should prevail."   Ultimately, the reason we have lots of articles about sports and athletes, and few articles about books and professors, is because of the attitude of their fans.  Sports fans are assertive.  Book fans are wimps.  Sports fans take action and talk their way into forgiveness if they get caught.  Book fans meekly ask for permission.  Sports fans say things like "I'm gonna write about the 2010 Mud Cats baseball season, whaddaya gonna do about it?".  Book fans ask things like, "This book has been published regularly since 1956 and it's in its 12th edition... uh, would it be okay if I wrote an article about it? Please?"  It easily meets general notability guidelines.  I'm glad that the article's author went ahead and wrote the article without worrying about what his or her peers might think. Mandsford 14:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The other reason we have more articles about sports than about books is our need for WP:reliable sources. Sports gets huge coverage every day in newspapers, television, and other easy-to-find-on-the-internet sources, so there are a ton of sources for even the most minor sports figure. But books? If your local paper ran an entire separate book section every night, and your local TV station aired a regular nightly report from its Books Reporter, then we could hold books to the same criteria we use for sports. I agree with you - expecting to find heavy sourcing for any book is just silly. Any hope of modifying this standard to reflect reality a little better? --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Mandsford has made a good find. Lady  of  Shalott  15:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep What Mandsford said. Plus, how many MILLIONS of schoolchildren have read this book? Far more than ever read most "New York Times bestsellsers". Plus, an example of the sincerest form of flattery: AP notes for this book. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 19 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.