Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panic Nation

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 no consensus. Sandstein 05:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Panic Nation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Finishing nomination for IP editor as per request on the AfD talkpage. The IP originally proposed the article's deletion, then realised it had already been proposed in the past, so wasn't eligible. Prod rationale was "fails WP:NBOOK: no secondary sources, no awards; improvements to article since August 2008 limited to the correction of misspellings." I have no opinion on the matter yet, just fixing the nomination Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Definitely meets the notability criteria, I have added two references. I have corrected spellings and cleaned it up a little. The article could do with expansion. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are 4 sources, but many non-notable books have reviews and the like. I carefully looked at the actual notice paid to this book in these sources.

3 of the 4 references were routine coverage of an upcoming new book ("In a new book on X..."). They don't evidence any kind of significant (WP:N) or enduring (WP:NOT) notice, this is simply the usual kind of routine coverage given to almost every new book on popular topics(WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE touches on this). The dates make this very likely, all are dated 2005; the book itself was published in 2006.
The 4th is the reference in "Biopolitics and the obesity epidemic". This does show attention, the book has been "noticed" 4 years after publication and used as a source in another book. However the coverage is brief mentions on 3 pages (p. 40 - 42) used as a "final example" on the field of biopolitics. The book itself is not what is getting the attention, rather it gains brief mentions for mentioning some points in the biopolitics debate.

For me, this doesn't show "significant attention" by the wider world. Notability would require significant secondary coverage in multiple sources not just related to its launch and prompted by routine publicity of new books. This book was mostly a "here today buried by other new releases next month" book, the kind that we don't cover. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per FT2. Coverage does not seem to be substantial enough to show notability.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 05:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. This reference recently added by Jezhotwells is a full review of the book itself in the New Statesman. Here is another in the Sunday Times. In addition, the authors get quoted at length in articles about the subject, for example [1]. --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really convinced by these. All 3 are from the same brief period in 2005 as the other "new release" coverage already cited. I can't get "New Statesman" to load, but the Sunday Times is a column "Food Detective" (indiscriminate coverage?) reviewing the new food book release, and the BBC is on the "Junk Food in Schools" debate where Professor Marks' view is quoted and it is limited to the briefest of throwaway mentions ("Vincent Marks, Professor of Clinical Biochemistry and co-editor of a new book titled Panic Nation, claims (whatever)" - there is no further mention or discussion of the book). I can't find significant mentions post-publication (eg 2007 onwards) in Google generally or in Google Scholar. Is there any evidence this book has gained significant independent notice not merely prompted by routine release of a new book? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be introducing a brand-new criterion of your own. WP:NB, the notability standard for books, does not require that the book continue to be talked about for years after its publication. It just requires "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] 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." --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The "New Statesman" article loads for me, but it takes a minute. It's a 600 word review, by one of their regular writers, entirely about this book. --MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm looking at What Wikipedia is not as well as notability. Many items get brief but widespread coverage - suicides, murders, political matters, new books, etc. Almost every book gets some coverage when it is released. This kind of coverage doesn't make them notable. We are lacking evidence that the book got significant coverage that was not merely related to new book publication, a routine event. The coverage cited almost all appears to date from and be prompted by its publication as commented above: BBC (mentioned in passing only, 3 Oct 2005), Toronto Star (inaccessible, 8 Oct 2005), Food detective (also indiscriminate?, 18 June 2005), New Statesman (~~inaccessible~~ standard "new book" review, routine coverage, 18 July 2005). Post-immediate publication it doesn't seem to have had significant attention otherwise. Being "the subject of multiple non-trivial works" does not mean mere mentions. What would help is significant / non-trivial coverage that shows the book got more than transient publication-related attention. I had a look in case it existed but couldn't find any. Maybe others can? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I got the New Statesman article to load. It's standard "new book" coverage. Like many topics, I am concerned that it falls foul of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Is there any evidence that it gained notice beyond being normally reviewed on publication? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think this new requirement should be added to the notability standard for books - that it's not enough for the book to get multiple reviews when it first comes out, people must still be talking and writing about it years later - the place to propose it is Wikipedia talk:Notability (books). Not here in the AfD discussion about one book. Because we should be discussing based on existing standards, which I have quoted above. And under existing standards, this is a notable book.
Personally I doubt if your proposed new standard will achieve consensus, because it is unrealistic. The normal time for books to be reviewed is when they first come out. A notable book will get multiple, substantial reviews in major reliable sources. A non-notable book will receive little or no notice, or notice only in a few very local or very specialized sources - certainly not in the Sunday Times! After those first few months, even a New York Times top bestseller is likely to get little or no ongoing or additional coverage. That's just the way it works.
IMO it is not true that "Almost every book gets some coverage when it is released." The truth is that every NOTABLE book gets coverage in major sources when it is released. Non-notable books (and we see a lot of them here at AfD) do not get reviewed, certainly not by major national papers, and certainly not as a stand-alone full review (as opposed to being one of a half-dozen books in a column about cookbooks or teen fiction or whatever the genre is). That's the distinction. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.