Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telling Right From Wrong

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Telling Right From Wrong[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Significance/notability of book not established SecretName101 (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are cites in the article plus [1], more of these sources, [2], [3], plus many other newspaper articles, other books that cite and discuss the book, plus it made its way on best-seller lists, and so on. Plenty of sources to find on Archive.org as well. Some of these works label the book as an example of literature discussing fake news in the mainstream media, which I think is pretty significant. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: none of which is in the article. Please add that (sourced) to the article. Even then. It is not clear the book itself is notable. Many unnotable books have been written on notable subject matter. SecretName101 (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grrrrrrr, it is not up to editors who list sources at afd to add them to an article, indeed WP:BEFORE (at point D.) suggests that before nominating, a search for sources should be made, a simple gsearch ie. ""Telling Right From Wrong" by timothy cooney book reviews" brings up multiple useable (for wikinotability) reviews (including some of those listed above) that shows this book is wikinotable. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. WP:BKCRIT alone is enough to preserve this article because two New York Times reviews have been published. More probably exist. The editor above me has also provided solid proof of WP:GNG. Per WP:NEXIST, the sources do not actually need to be in the article to save it from deletion. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Honestly, the two New York Times items — one a story about its path to publication, the other a substantial review — would be enough. And there's plenty more beyond that. XOR'easter (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded this some more. Apparently the shady antics didn't stop once it got picked up by a publisher, as the NYT review by Sidney Hook was apparently subject to criticism as well, which received its own coverage. I've included this all in the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks very nice. Thanks! XOR'easter (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Honestly, I'm surprised that this isn't more known nowadays as far as the literature world goes. It's kind of a sordid little tale, honestly. It'd make for an interesting film as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, the more I find, the sadder this actually becomes. The guy was the ex-husband of Joan Ganz Cooney and apparently helped bolster her confidence when it came to Sesame Street. However at the same time her success chafed since he felt unimportant. I wonder if that played into his reasons for the forgery. In any case, he became pretty self-destructive in his later years as the whole issue surrounding the forgery ultimately kept him from achieving the recognition and success he craved in philosophy. The forgery was wrong, but you can't help but feel for the guy a little. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK as book has been reviewed by multiple (and not just two:)) sources, as brought out by editors above, this looks like another case of "Article content does not determine notability" (have a look before nominating). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews. Archrogue (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2021 (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.