Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wee Blue Book


 * 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. The article has been improved and there have been no comments other than the mom that support deletion. (non-admin closure)  Ya  sh  !   00:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The Wee Blue Book

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NBOOK. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The article was proposed for deletion, but another user removed the tag with the rationale: "Removed notice as numerous links establishing notability have been listed in the Talk page". There are six links given on the talk page. The first is a blog about Northern Ireland politics (Slugger O'Toole). The article in the Independent about Cybernats in general, rather than this book specifically. The third link (Common Space) is an interview of Stuart Campbell (the publisher of this book) about his activities during the Scottish referendum, while the fourth (The Herald) is a list of nominations for book of the year (with the WBB mentioned only in passing). The fifth is a political site effectively advertising the book and the sixth is an opinion piece in a Canadian newspaper about the referendum in general. None of these sources go into in-depth coverage of the book. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —  San ska ri  Hangout 15:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion below is copied from the article talk page Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So what? Those which are are very prominent and widely-read blogs, far outstripping the readership of many newspapers. The others ARE newspapers, in addition to those already cited in the entry. If being nominated as one of the Books Of The Year by the Herald - the oldest continually-published newspaper in the world - doesn't count as "notable", clearly nothing is going to satisfy you. AlanLertreader (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So what? The point is that it does not satisfy WP:NBOOK, the notability guideline for books. Has it been subject to at least two non-trivial works in independent sources? No. Has it won a major literary award? No. Is it considered by independent sources to have made a significant contribution to a political movement? No. Is it taught in schools? No. Is the book's author especially notable? No. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * According to your personal interpretation. Other people's differ. If you'd like a very long list of coverage of the *author* in the press to establish their notability, I can certainly help you. But you could start with his own entry on Wikipedia. And since that, of course, wouldn't be there at all if he wasn't acceptably notable, you'd be pretty scuppered already. AlanLertreader (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You have clearly not read WP:NBOOK. The point about an "especially notable author" is that in some cases, you may have a very famous writer who has a lesser known work that does not satisfy the other guidelines. With all due respect, Stuart Campbell does not qualify as "so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable" (to quote the guideline fully). As the guideline goes on to say, the fact that Stuart Campbell is personally notable by Wikipedia's standards is not relevant. Instead, the point is that the book's author is of "exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study" Again, Mr Campbell does not qualify on this basis. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I did read it. This bit seemed pertinent: "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or POLITICAL or religious movement." (My caps.) Numerous "reliable sources" have been listed to that effect. A million copies distributed among an electorate of just 4m is plainly significant by itself, even before considering the content. Your unexplained animosity is blinding you. AlanLertreader (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This deletion request seems politically-motivated, which goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Regardless of anyone's feelings towards the content, the publication was clearly a notable part of the referendum debate, partly evidenced by the fact it is still a talking point thirteen months later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.245.202 (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. Presumably if the book is such a "talking point" or a "notable part of the referendum debate", you would be able to provide evidence of this? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I can only agree this is a politically motivated request for deletion. The importance and influence of this one publication at the end of the referendum campaign is clear to anyone who was there. Oops, original research? Others have provided links. Those advocating deletion seem to be hanging their case on a disingenuous argument based on the fact that the bloody book was so much despised by the union-supporting media that they did their best to ignore it. Leave the article alone, it's not doing anyone any harm. The book isn't Animal Farm but it was easily significant enough for a Wikipedia entry. Morag Kerr (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If the book was that important, surely the parts of the media that were sympathetic towards independence (say the Sunday Herald) would have covered it? Or international sources, without an axe to grind? If it were that important, surely the pro-union media would have covered it to at least the extent of saying "this book is wrong and this is why"? WP:MERCY applies to the "it's not doing anyone any harm" plea. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Given the arcane, often seemingly trivial content seen elsewhere on Wikipedia (with all due respect) an entry for such a self-funded, self-published, mass appeal phenomenon during such an historic democratic exercise seems perfectly justified. Motivations for wanting its removal can only be guessed at. 86.145.101.87 (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Or international sources, without an axe to grind?" They did, as per the example already linked. (ABC.es) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.237.203 (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, please assume good faith in other users. As for your arguments: "trivial content seen elsewhere" - other stuff exists; the fact it was self-funded and published is irrelevant. The crux of the argument for keeping the article is that the book had a significant impact on the Scottish independence referendum, 2014. You have not provided any evidence of this. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A Book Of The Year nomination in a national newspaper is clear evidence of that, which for some reason you're dismissing out of hand as having been "in passing", despite such nominations being the entire and sole point of the article in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.237.203 (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that while Jmorrison230582 has leapt within minutes on every other comment on this page, he's still got no retort to the above point a day later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.237.203 (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe that I already addressed that above ("the fourth (The Herald) is a list of nominations for book of the year (with the WBB mentioned only in passing)"). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No you didn't, because as I noted above, saying it's "in passing" is a ludicrous statement when the *only purpose* of the article is to nominate books for the award. You haven't offered any counter to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.237.203 (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The mention in The Herald ("Finally, Wings Over Scotland's Wee Blue Book is both iconic and of continuing value.") would only be relevant for one of two reasons per WP:NBOOK: if the book won a literary award (it didn't) or if the source talked about the book in some detail and depth (it didn't). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:NBOOK stipulates, as has already been noted, that the required criteria include that "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant [...] event or political or religious movement." It further notes that only one of the criteria it lists is required for inclusion. Regardless of whether awards were won, regardless of the "depth" of coverage, that criterion seems to be more than amply satisfied by the numerous links posted.92.27.237.203 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The book has been mentioned by numerous newspapers at home, as well as the Wall Street Journal and other international publications such as the Canadian HuffPo. It is also mentioned as being important in perhaps the only book (as of yet) to seriously examine the 2014 referendum: Prof. Mike Gardiner's Time and Action in the Scottish Independence Referendum.   Admittedly, the sourcing on the article could be improved, and currently the WBB probably only just satisfies the criteria set out by WP:Book, but I think we should keep it, or, if this debate closes as delete, merge it with Mr Campbell's entry. Hillbillyholiday talk 05:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can see why this article was listed as an AfD, especially being written by a person who has been such a controversial figure. But there has been quite a bit of info added to the article itself, since it was nominated. The number of downloads of this book was huge (especially considering the penetration of the target audience, i.e. download figures per head of population) which occurred over just a one-month period between the book being published and the Scottish Independence referendum vote taking place. So, although it is a book relating to a very specific time period, it seems worthy of being kept. I reckon it passes WP:GNG or number 3 of WP:NBOOK where the event is the referendum itself. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:56, 6 November 2015 (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.