Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Irish Famine (book) (2nd nomination)

I've added links to 4 additional reviews in the article bringing the total to eight (8) verifiable, non-trivial independent reviews currently referenced:
 * Keep (still). Criteria 1 of Notability (books) says: A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: 1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. (my bolding).


 * New Statesman review
 * Socialist Review
 * Historiographical Review from Eastern Illinois University magazinepdf
 * The Spectator review


 * America magazine review


 * Publishers Weekly review (short)

This book also meets the minimum threshold standards for WP:BK as it has an ISBN number and is cataloged by the National Library of Ireland. This is the second attempt to delete this article by the same nominator in 2 weeks. The original author has not been informed about either AfD, which is a breach of courtesy. Frankly, this comment by the nominator on the article's talk page shortly before the first AfD nomination shows that this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than an attempt to gain community consensus on a case of dubious notability. In the interests of full disclosure, I discovered that the nominator had misrepresented my comments on the first AfD to the closing admin in an attempt get him to overturn his decision - So yeah, I am a tad pissed. Paxse 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bookview Ireland review


 * Comment: First and foremost, I do not appreciate the tone and manner adopted by your comments. One is considered to assume good faith on Wikipedia, I would suggest you keep that in mind when addressing comments. Now as to misrepresenting you, Firstly it was user Vintagekits I was refering to and not you, in the comment you so helpfully provided.As Vintagekits was leaning towards delete, not you. Secondly, you provided two dubious links,with the following comments, "Here are links to two sites showing the book is part of the reading list for undergraduate courses at the University of Aberdeen and University of Adelaide ,"   having read them, there was no mention of the book at all. I raised this during the discussion and you never bothered to respond. So in the intrest of "full disclosure," why did I also cite advertising and Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement in my reasons for deletion? This book is in no way notable by any stretch of the imagination. As to it being my second nomination, this was on the advice of the admin who closed the debate. If the articles author has not got it book marked I would be very surprised. If it is part of the protocol to inform the articles author, well then I would most certainly apologise unreservedly. I was under the impression though that once an article is created it belongs to the community? As to my motivation, I based it on the following discussion, and.
 * Hi Domer48, and thank you for your comments. The two links above which I mentioned in the previous deletion debate were an honest mistake. I googled ""The Irish famine: a documentary" +Ferriter and found the two undergraduate reading lists above. Unfortunately, "The Irish famine: a documentary history" by Kissane is on those reading lists, along with another article by Ferriter. However, I only mentioned these links as an additional piece of information to help determine potential notability under WP:BK criteria #4 - and I did not add them to the article. In response to your claim that I failed to reply to your question about the links. I went off-line an hour before your question was posted and the debate was closed four hours after my comment - leaving me no chance to reply before I logged back into WP on the 27th. However, these were secondary pieces of evidence for notability. My substantive contribution to the previous AfD was to research and add links in the article to three 3rd party reviews of the book - see this diff . Therefore, telling the closing admin that my AfD contribution and keep argument was based on the two reading list links above was misrepresenting my argument. I don't appreciate my relevant good faith contributions in the diff above being characterised by you as "using links which do not mention the book at all" or "misleading"   leading the closing admin to call them "bogus" . I also feel that your reference to WP:AGF above is disingenuous - as you have so far failed to extended me the courtesy of assuming good faith in my edits. By the way WP:AFD and WP:GAFD both say "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Paxse 12:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The information you provided in the last discussion was misleading, and you are attempting to do this again. I suggest that you retract you comments, or, after this discussion closes we take it up with an administrator.


 * The "information" that I provided in the previous debate - was to research and add links in the article to three 3rd party reviews of the book - see this diff . In this second AfD, my "information" is to add links to four additional third party reviews - and . Of course, you are welcome to carry out your threat to "take it up with an administrator" if you believe that is appropriate. Paxse 12:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I would now like a reasoned response to the following questions. How is this book notable, what makes it notable? Or is it a case of Ní Duintear fuil as Tornap.

I have addressed the other comments you raised here also.


 * I honestly don't understand what you would consider a 'reasoned response'. I have demonstrated above how the book meets criteria 1 and the minimum threshold standards of WP:BK with citations - is this not a reasoned response?. I'd also like a translation of "Ní Duintear fuil as Tornap." as I have no idea what it means, but I suspect it's not "Happy editing!". Paxse 12:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Notability (books).

The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.

"Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves notable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is notable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.

The Socialist Review, is by and large a commentary on the Famine, and not on the book, at no time in the review dose it suggest that the information is notable, only that it is useful. In addition, a posting on Socialist Worker web sites, are not themselves notable. And is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)

New Statesman’s review dose not suggest the books notability, and is by and large a commerical web site. The review in fact consintrates on the author and not on the book. This again is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)

America, the Catholic weekly Magizine published by the Jesuits. The reviwer talks more about the author and quite clearly states that this book will not create so much as a “wrinkle” into the Famine debate. And again, I would suggest that this review could not be described as having satisafied the criteria laid out under the Wikipedia:Notability (books)

As for commercial book sites, they would definitely not constitute as being “no-trivial”.

Regards --Domer48 20:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you may be confused. WP:BK does not mention 'commercial book sites' only sites that exist to sell books - like Amazon.com - which is not referenced. The guideline against linking to commercial sites generally is from WP:EL. Naturally, newspapers and magazines that publish book reviews are generally commercial entities - but this does not make their book reviews 'trivial'. Also book reviews do not need to be positive about the book or to specifically mention the word "notable" to be considered verifiable 3rd party references. Paxse 12:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I followed the link provided for Publishers Weekly review (short) (a commercial book site) and this is what I came up with,. Is this supposed to establish the books notability? I again followed the link for BOOKVIEW IRELAND, and find that again, it is a commercial book site. Based on previous experiance the link to Historiographical Review from Eastern Illinois University magazinepdf, can be considered along side the links to the University of Aberdeen and the University of Adelaide. Regards --Domer48 22:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This comment also seems quite disingenuous. My Publisher's weekly link in your paragraph above shows a short review of the book (scroll down to July publications) your link is to your unsuccessful (and unnecessary) search for the author's name which fails to return any hits. This demonstrates that the PW website search function does not index older reviews - it says nothing about notability. The link to the review in the Eastern Illinois University history magazine 'Historia' (2006 edition) is now dead, as are all links to their magazine archive - it seems they are making some changes on their website. I will search for an archived copy of the magazine and correct the article link if possible. Paxse 12:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There are a vast number of books on the Irish Famine, for example, a 20sec search on Addall.com (A book site) can bring up over 40 titles. There are a number of Notable titles, in this genre, such as The Great Hunger, by Cecil Woodham-Smith, Irelands Great Famine, by Cormac O Grada, and Ireland Since the Famine, by F.S.L. Lyons. As examples, the reason I mention them, is that they are cited so often in later publications. Examples of this can be found in such publications as The Great Calamity, by Christine Kinealy, The Great Shame, by Thomas Keneally, and Paddy’s Lament, by Thomas Gallagher. It is this fact, which establishes their Notability. This book has not established itself any Notability. And has not been the subject of “multiple” “non-trivial” publications such as I have outlined above. (I have a number of books related to the subject, in addition to those mentioned above and have included some here and here  ) Regards--Domer48 09:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - This book more than meets Criteria 1 of Notability (books). There are numerous non-trivial 3rd party reviews as listed by Paxse. The book is therefore notable under wiki guidelines. Kernel Saunters 10:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: The book in no way comes close to meeting the criteria of Notability (books). For example, as I have already outlined, the book has not been the subject of “Non-trivial” sources. They have not “contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary."

Since the only critira that is been suggested being No.1, as outlined in Notability (books), can I assume that it has been conceeded that the following points, have been despenced with, and that the book dose not meet any of the criteria mentioned below?
 * “The book has won a major literary award.” It has not!
 * “The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.” It has not!
 * “The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.” It most definitly has not!
 * "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." They have not!

Again, I will ask the question, what makes this book notable? I assume that editors have read it, and / or are familiar with the subject?
 * I have addressed the sources which have been cited, and would appreciate some feed back on my previous comments? Regards--Domer48 16:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Paxse I have addressd your comments on your talk page, so as not to disrupt this discussion.--Domer48 16:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Paxse in their points raised on Notability used the The National Library of Ireland and the fact that the book has an ISBN number to establish Notability. In reply, The National Library of Ireland, like its counterpart in England catalogues all native Publications, regardless of Notability. Most if not all publications now have an ISBN number? Therefore, both these contributions do not establish Notability. In addition, using the terms WP:BK and Notability (books), interchangeably could lend to the assumption that the book meets the requirements for two separate policies, when they are in fact one and the same. And it dose not satisfy the criteria outlined for notability. Regards --Domer48 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)