Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This book was not notable before the scandal; and is just pile-on to the scandal based on the wording of the book being odd in retrospect. I thus conclude the book has no notability independent of the scandal, which already is a large article. Kansan (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes Notability (books) as the subject of 8 in-depth and serious articles by a variety of major news outlets. The nominator's supposed requirement that the book have some kind of "super notability" outside of the controversy is nonsense and not supported by any policy or consensus.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge Article is rather less about the book and more about the man's actions and the darkly ironic title. Both are proven notable, so suggest a merge to the Jerry Sandusky article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems that the book itself has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Therefore, it is notable even if that coverage was motivated by the recent criminal charges.  However, because of WP:BLP concerns, experienced editors should ensure that the article doesn't degenerate into an attack article.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It may not have been notable before, but it is now. There's no requirement that a book's notability cannot be attributable to an event occurring after its publication. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a punch line, not an encyclopedic topic. There is no serious coverage of this book as a significant literary work, nor does the title meet inclusion criteria for books. Carrite (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that a large number of major media outlets have seen fit to write about the book makes it notable. The book's qualification as a "literary work" is not relevant.  It's certainly not just a "punch line" when a book written by an accused serial pedophile is used by the media to provide a glimpse into the motivation and history of said pedophile. --GrapedApe (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Allegations that the book constituted good advice that he just didn't take do not override notability policy. Nevard (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Hard to ignore the multiple sources that specifically cover the book, and not just the scandal or the person. The extra-lulzy title is a bonus. Tarc (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge I mentioned this in the talk page:
 * I think this article is a candidate for AfD, unless you can establish notability before the whole Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal broke. This would include articles published around the time the book was published (use Lexis-Nexis or Newsbank to find citations), citations in media prior to November 2011 when Sandusky was charged, or other reviews that provide critical commentary per WP:NB and not just a rehash of the double entendre or other aspects, which are all Sandusky-scandal related. Calwatch (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I read that comment when I first started working on the article, and I don't see how it holds water. Was Lee Harvey Oswald notable before he visited the book depository?  No, but his life prior to that moment has since received significant coverage.  I appreciate that this book may not be notable (I'm not yet weighing in on that score) and that the article is already an original research magnet, but claiming that its notability must have been established prior to the allegations coming to light simply doesn't make sense.  Mind you, I am not convinced that this book needs an article, but this argument falls flat.  If there's a policy or guideline to back it up, please provide it, because I'm clearly missing it.--~TPW 12:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Graped Ape. Criterion 1 under Notability (books) appears to have been met. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial newspaper articles, including critical commentary that allows the article to grow past a simple plot summary. Cbl62 (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sometimes people, places and/or events become notable through controversy. This happens to be one of those instances. Like it or not, the book has received sufficient outside coverage to pass notability for books. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Same reasons as others.--Yankees10 03:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant coverage in numerous secondary sources independent of the subject. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and semi-protect. 71.192.117.233 (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2011 (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.