Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:SOAP, we are not a platform for opinion and promotion. The book is not a serious work of history. It comes from a publisher of "irreference" works and is a bundle of fringe ideas. It was written by the head of an advertising agency who naturally tried to hype it on the internet. The Daily Mail was happy to cooperate in this as it gave them the opportunity to rubbish it at length. But if we strip this tabloid mock-battle out then we're not left with much. In this age of fake news, we shouldn't encourage the promotion of fake history and, without the hype, there's not enough here to support the topic as passing WP:NBOOK. Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Per this discussion the Daily Mail is no longer considered to be a RS on Wikipedia, so I've removed the claims backed up by those sources. The arguments that seem to have ultimately led to the DM losing its RS status are "poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication", which means that we probably shouldn't even rely on comments made by people who would otherwise be seen as RS in their own right unless those same claims and comments are backed up by sources that are still seen as RS on Wikipedia. This still leaves two sources, which I'll look at shortly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  02:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I found reviews by the New Statesman and Publishers Weekly. As ridiculous the claims in the book appear to be, the work does seem to technically pass notability guidelines for books, as it's been written about in four publications that are currently seen as RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  02:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This nomination seems to be a misreading of WP:SOAP - the article itself is not advocating the view that the British Empire is responsible for all the world's evils, it is merely about a book that is promoting that position. And the subject appears to meet Criteria 1 of WP:NBOOK as it "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself."   I personally think that is rather a low bar, but that is what the guideline says.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as demonstrated above, this book passes the notability guidelines. The fact that this book is not serious has no bearing on its notability. Lepricavark (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article seems to be of less-than-standard quality, but it does not fall under WP:SOAP as it is the title of the book, not the supposed statement being made by the article. A good example is Mein Kampf, which is extremely anti-Semitic, including the title. The article does not construe anti-Semitism, this is just what the book is about. As for WP:NBOOKS, it passes per the information had kindly given to this discussion. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2009, with a result of speedy keep, albeit the reasoning for deletion being quite foolish, stating that the book is 'silly and stupid'. Wasn't sure if this would have any impact, so I'll just leave it here. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and save us from the book burners. A book does not need to be a "serious work of history" to be notable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  Keep Agree with nom/Pawnkingthree. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   16:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Deletion nomination seems to seriously misunderstand both WP:SOAP and WP:FRINGE. This article is not unduly promotional. It is about a book that easily passes WP:NBOOK. Just because the book may be regarded as absurd does not mean the article can be validly deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2017 (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.