Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rise of Victimhood Culture


 * 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The result was speedy keep: nomination withdrawn due to WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 15:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The Rise of Victimhood Culture

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This book shows no signs of being notable. Of the 6 references in the article, none actually reference the book itself, they are only related to its contents. As such this book does not meet any of the WP:NB criteria. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 17:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that EVERY article nominated for deletion by User:Newbiepedianhas been KEPT.Here: . E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: changed to keep per WP:HEY done by .   SITH   (talk)   09:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep (article creator). Nom and SITH ought to read the page. The first subhead is about a 2015 academic article that made a splash.   The authors turned the argument in their widely cited article  into a book.  Article and book make the same argument, and are inextricably linked, which is why I made a joint page.  Article and book have certainly gotten WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep There's no perfect way to handle a book article where the book comes from a clearly notable source (article, dissertation, etc) but has not itself received many reviews yet. The specific topic/argument from these authors clearly passes WP:GNG. The question of whether it should be an article about the article with a section on the book or an article about the book with a section on the article is something for the talk page, not AfD. Either way, if there's just one article to consider, deletion is not the appropriate response. So, even if the book does not technically meet WP:NBOOK right now, a little WP:IAR serves the readers of the encyclopedia we're here to build. Bakazaka (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Excellent WP:RS sourcing.  People may quibble on the very notable article vs. the recently published book with the exact same topic with the same thesis by the same two authors: that conversation belongs on the TP.  AfD is not cleanup and can never be. XavierItzm (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2019 (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.