Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Evil Empire: 101 Ways England Ruined the World


 * 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 delete both author and book, despite the jolly good show by our IP friend and his single purpose accounts. Sandstein 22:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Evil Empire: 101 Ways England Ruined the World

 * (View AfD) (View log)

PROD'd and then Deprodded by the creator. This book doesn't really meet any reasonable definition of notability. As far as "sources" there is the "British Reparations" website (which appears to be affiliated with the author of the book), a press release from that website, a couple mentions in a catch-all article on the Philadelphia Inquirer website, and a brief mention on the "Hot List" in that bastion of journalistic integrity, the New York Post. I don't see any serious, reliable 3rd party coverage here. My opinion is that this should be Deleted. Isotope23 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm bundling Steven Grasse with this as well. Author of the book has no claim to WP:BIO, particularly if his book is deemed not notable.--Isotope23 16:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete NN. (If anyone's interested the author puts up a fairly poor show in this BBC interview) andy 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonsense, POV, COI, not notable, possibly a hoax. Or as the British say, pure rubbish. Bearian 17:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a hoax... the book does exist... it's just not a particularly notable piece of literature.--Isotope23 20:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Pure rubbish indeed. Nick mallory 02:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not a hoax, but neither article meets the notability requirements, and the book article is just not salvageable. Hatch68 15:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable third party coverage is available. Mackbuck 9:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly the vitriol on this page shows that this is a notable subject. Vieques2007 10.21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Quite apart from the fact that this discussion isn't vitriolic, the views of editors don't make a book notable. The nominator commented that there's no serious, reliable 3rd party coverage and that's still true despite the flurry of recent additions to the article by Mackbuck. It's clear that the book had its 15 minutes of fame but no more than that and most people have now forgotten about it. andy 08:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The book is notable. It is notable in that it is the first mainstream book of its kind to lay the blame at British Imperialism as being the root of the modern world's problems that wasn't written by Marx or Engels or some other communist, in fact as far as I can see the author is somewhat right wing. It is also notable for the controversy it has stirred up in the mainstream British press, the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the Richard & Judy show etc as well as the controversy it seems to have stirred up among some Wikipedians whose dislike of the book seems to outweigh impartial editorship. It's also fairly notable in that it points the finger of blame to areas in a way that clearly nobody else is. Further, the foreword was written by notorious and notable anarchist Penny Rimbaud. It is however true that the article is not particularly well written, can someone rewrite? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.149.28 (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Hmmm... It's interesting that we're starting to get Keep votes from hitherto unknown users whose only WP contributions are to this debate. One shouldn't read too much into it, of course. andy 21:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm Andy, keep, keep... that's interesting that you don't seem to have any understanding of dynamic IP addresses, where a service provider assigns a random IP number for the duration of time that you're logged on for. So, er, if you log off it reassigns the number elsewhere but if you don't shut down you keep the same IP number. Is that beyond your comprehension? Of course it would just be coincidence that you would be looking for any reason at all to discount an opinion that differs from your own. 212.139.248.79 08:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 'So Andy, keep, keep... did you notice that? that if you shut down you get a new IP number? but that if you don't shut down between two posts a few minutes apart that you still have the same IP number? did you learn something andy? 212.139.248.79 08:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Hey Andy, keep, keep... It's still me, but look, is my IP address different? Want to know why? That's right, between the last time I posted and now I've shut down and rebooted and, during that time, my service provider assigned me a new IP address. Click on my IP and the chances are that almost certainly you won't see any of the articles I've contributed to, or any of the real vandalism that I've cleaned up.... What's the point of all this? The point being that yesterday I made some legitimate observations on the book's notability which you sought to discount for really quite spurious reasons, please don't do that any more Andy, now that you understand about dynamic IP addresses, right? 80.47.64.42 10:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When someone with no apparent history speaks in defence of an article in an AfD debate other editors are right to be a bit suspicious. There are plenty of examples of sock- and meat-puppetry in this kind of situation. But when the effect of that suspicion is to provoke a sustained personal attack what else can a fellow think? (Of course if you do have a history in WP that you would care to share with us I'm prepared to eat my words). andy 16:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sustained personal attack? What? Did I call you mean names? Did I criticise you for the colour of your hair or the cut of your shoes? No, I made some valid observations about the possible notability of this book, and rather than discuss or debate those observations of notability you decided to dismiss them all out of hand because you couldn't trace any other contributions I might have made to Wikipedia from my IP address.... Since then I have tried to show you, perhaps a little sarcastically, why a dynamic IP address doesn't necessarily show you anything, but to interpret that as a sustained personal attack is sort of intellectually dishonest.... I'm certainly not going to use this as a forum to list articles that I have contributed to just because it takes your fancy, nor can I remember every subhead in every article on Socratean philosophy that I have removed rogue "fucks", "shits" and "cunts" from. This is supposed to be about the relative merits and notability of the book in question. Which brings me back to the real issue. It's certainly weird to me that this book which has been debated and discussed on several highly respected BBC radio shows was certainly considered notable enough by teams of BBC researchers, production assistants, producers, directors, presenters and panelists but because a couple of overzealous Wikipedians take exception to the contents of the book it's suddenly not notable... If you don't believe me just have a look at the discussion page (not this page) for the article... Certainly the book is notable, and certainly the article is not particularly well written, it reads like it was written in a hurry, but what it needs is a rewrite, it doesn't merit deletion 80.47.64.42 21:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever. andy 22:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, those Daily Mail and Philadelphia Inquirer articles seem to make it notable. Needs rewrite, though. 96T 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Notability requires more than a few newspaper reviews. The references in the article are all to a brief controversy generated by a publicity campaign. That happens all the time with book launches - and the next day another "controversy" comes along when another book is launched (as a result of the PR this book shot up to #20 in the Amazon best sellers list but now, a month later, it's down to #36,811). But WP:N explicitly states that "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." I.e. newspaper reviews are not necessarily indications of notability. The books of, for example, Bill Bryson are notable because long after everyone has forgotten the reviews and the radio and TV appearances people are still buying them, recommending them and talking about them on the net and in print. Not so for the works of Steven Grasse. andy 10:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you read the newspaper articles, or listen to the radio excerpts, or watch the Richard and Judy episode, it becomes pretty clear that they are not "publishing the same article from a news wire service", nor are they "merely restating the same information", indeed it becomes pretty clear that they are "independent works". Are you suggesting that Bill Bryson deserves his entry on WP only because of his relative longevity, because by the same criteria if Wikipedia had been around twenty years ago then he woudn't have been listed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.242.95 (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I think that footnote is a good fit to what happens when a book is reviewed. PR material is not a "news wire" as such but it's pretty much the same thing - information from a single source which is either rehashed or only developed very slightly by the writer. In fact two of the articles focus on the level of PR and four of them do little more than restate the PR material the writer has received. IMHO these references don't meet the standard required for notability. On the other point, notability does not require longevity but it helps. In the case of a book if the controversy had continued to grow then notability could have been established in as little as a month. But it clearly died down as fast as it blew up and most people have already forgotten about it. No-one is talking much about it as far as I can tell and sales have fallen dramatically. If you have references that rebut this please add them asap. andy 11:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The WP article on notability also states that "If a topic has multiple independent reliable published sources, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing" which seems to suggest that even if coverage of this book has died down relatively recently that in itself does not constitute any reason for lack of notability. Further "Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability guidelines do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc." You yourself have said things like "(If anyone's interested the author puts up a fairly poor show in this BBC interview) andy" and "the book had its 15 minutes of fame but no more than that and most people have now forgotten about it. andy". These appear to be fairly subjective reasoning on your part, no? And if anyone should put forward reasons for notability you attempt to trivialise them, without actually addressing those reasons for notabilty. Clearly you have it in for this book but seem unable to engage in honest academic argument. How do you feel about the fact that this is the first modern mainstream book of its kind to take a position against British Imperialism that doesn't come from a Marxist/Leninist perspective, indeed rather from a right wing one? Do you not consider that to be notable? If not, why not? How do you feel about the fact that the book's foreword was written by notorious and notable anarchist Penny Rimbaud? 88.108.242.95 12:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion isn't progressing the AfD debate. My personal views are irrelevant - the only important issue is whether the article meets WP's notability requirements. I've explained why I think it doesn't. Other editors may take their own point of view on the matter. However I suggest that you supply stronger evidence of notability within the article as soon as possible because (in my opinion) it isn't there yet. If the book has become notable in the WP sense you need to make sure that's clear. The nominator said "This book doesn't really meet any reasonable definition of notability". IMHO that's still true, but we will have to wait and see what others think. andy 13:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Au contraire. Your personal views are now irrelevant, yet earlier in the discussion thay were apparently profound and important. And rather than enter into academic discussion you sought to trivialise that academic discussion for spurious reasons. And still you are unable to enter into that academic discussion. Why? Is it because you don't feel you know enough about the book, its context and its subject matter? In that case why are you so vociferous in seeking deletion? In my (perhaps limited) experience of AfD debates I have never come across any editor quite so partisan on the side of deletion, in other discussions I've seen plenty of partial, partisan nonsense opposed to an article's deletion but this really is a first, perhaps that in itself is, er, notable 88.108.242.95 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please review AfD etiquette which requests that contributors should be civil and avoid the use of sarcastic language. How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette explains important aspects of the process of which you may not be aware, including the relative weight given to the opinions of editors and this point in particular: "If the reasons given in the nomination are addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin." You clearly feel that this article should be retained so why not improve it by adding the references that will establish notability? andy 15:11, 14 May 2007 (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.