Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Times Will Suit Them

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Times Will Suit Them[edit]

No evidence that this book is notbale. It got two newspaper mentions (in the same paper, on the same day, about 2 weeks ago on 23-Nov-2008) [1] [2], and a briefer mention in The Australian back on 1-Nov-2008 [3] but my opinion is that being merely being reviewed in one or two newspaper reviews does not make a book notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Orderinchaos 20:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google search revealing WP:RS coverage of said book from multiple news sources including News.com.au, The Australian, and ABC, published by Allen & Unwin. As noteable as any other book article on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- PeterSymonds (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Passes criterion 1 of WP:NB. Has been covered in the major publications and media in Australia. Considering that it was released not so long ago, perhaps more such reviews/coverage could be obtained in the future. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 14:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Agree with Timeshift. Johnfos (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The book is marginally notable given it was published by Allen & Unwin, a major publisher, but I'm not absolutely certain that it warrants a Wiki article. Orderinchaos 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per below. Delete for the moment. The book has not yet established notability. --Surturz (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What in your opinion does establish book noteability? Timeshift (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The book reveals some significant information previously unknown 2) the authorised or auto- biography of a notable person 3) a bestseller 4) study of the book is part of a curriculum (ordinary textbooks excepted) 5) the book is banned/censored 6) holy book of a notable religion. Feel free to convince me, though... why is this book in particular better than other similar books on the Howard era? --Surturz (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Books which are basically extended and somewhat researched (the level of research varies) opinion pieces or commentaries are published all the time, and by/through reputable publishers. Some of them make for good reading. But to deserve an article on Wikipedia there must be something more. Broken Lives by Estelle Blackburn for instance resulted in public attention to two old criminal cases which were subsequently overturned. The Latham Diaries and Costello's memoirs had media impact. The Education of a Young Liberal by John Hyde Page was influential, as was Keith Windschuttle's book questioning Aboriginal history (which really, btw, needs to be separated out from History wars) and Geoffrey Blainey's All for Australia. However I can think of several works reviewing politics of recent years which simply, yeah, I mean, they were decent reads whether one agreed with them or not, but they were just non-happeners, nobody outside either the latte set or the conservative fringe gave a stuff. Many of them really just existed to give obscure academics or journalists some level of respectability by having a published work. Some even got a one page book review in an academic journal, or written about in one of the arts sections of the dailies. But I'd argue against their notability on the basis that Wikipedia would almost be embarking on a promotional endeavour to cover them, as nobody outside a limited audience would know or have cause to know about them. Orderinchaos 08:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the book narrowly meets one of the notability criteria for books, having been the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial independent coverage (the Herald Sun review, and the discussion on Radio National). Two mentions, both fairly brief but both critical commentary rather than plot summaries, both in reliable secondary sources. The (needlessly opaque) Radio National story is perhaps the more important as it debates the themes the book presents rather than simply reviewing it, but neither piece is the kind of in-depth examination that would absolutely guarantee notability. Still, on balance there could be just enough here to retain the article. Euryalus (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You're right to raise critical commentary - WP:NB says of works which cite a book, "Some... should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." But I don't see anything remotely like that in this case. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I'd interpret this as being coverage which discusses the themes or the writing, rather than simply restating the plot. So if the principal purpose of the coverage is to review the book or its ideas rather than repeat its contents page, it may rate as critical commentary. The Herald Sun article, for example, outlines the "plot" but goes on to discuss the opacity of the language and the relative depth of the book's examination of Howard-era political landscape. The Sociology article also gives a "plot summary" but goes on to discuss the validity of the plot arguments in Australian society. I'd qualify this by noting that the critical commentary in each case is brief, and these are the only two such sources I could find (the other links mentioned above are mirrors of the Herald Sun) or publisher's blurbs. So - we need multiple sources citing critical commentary, and we have two sources with limited critical commentary. I'd therefore say it meets WP:NB, but only by the narrowest of margins. Euryalus (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputing references as to notability[edit]

I am disputing the references given as evidence of the book's notability:

1. John Howard's time as Prime Minister not forgotten - this is a book review (evidenced by the price tag at the bottom), and does not establish notability
2. Dr Matt Sharpe on why The Howard Years is compulsive viewing - this has nothing to do with the book. It is actually about The Howard Years TV show.
3. Lives real and imagined - another book review. Not even of the book on its own.
4. Radio National show - authors publicising the book, disallowed under WP:NB (The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.)

(I'm not 100% convinced that these references even count as reliable sources)

I have yet to see any reference that makes this book stand out from the crowd. The coverage is the same as you would expect for any book that was recently published ie. a few book reviews and a few interviews with the author(s).

Things I'd like to see:

one of the subjects in the book interviewed about the book content (e.g. "Mr Howard, what is your response to allegations in the book The times will suit them that...")
A notable person quoting the book as an influence
Evidence of a journalist doing some research based on the book's content ie. it provoked a news story

--Surturz (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little mystifed - only one of those four references is used in the article. I agree the others are unsuitable or compeltely unrelated, but I'm not sure why they've been mentioned. The one that is used(the Herald Sun article) is coverage in a reliable secondary source, though its comprehensiveness is discussed above.

Re the things you'd like to see - I agree it would be great if Howard had been interviewed about the book and commented on it, but a personal opinion by a book's subject is not essential to establish that book's notability. A notable person quoting the book as an influence - an independent academic is quoted here - how notable he is is debatable, but this at least partly satisfies the request. Evidence of a news story about the book - the "Counterpoint" article linked above is a story on a news program - Counterpoint is a national current affairs program hosted by SMH columnist Michael Duffy and former journalist Paul Comrie-Thompson. In general, while the things you'd like to see would certainly help establish notability, they aren't requirements of the notability guideline.

Lest it appear I'm a cheerleader for the book, I'd add I'm only weakly in favour of keeping the article. The sources are a bit thin, the book has won no awards and it doesn't seem to be groundbreaking in any meaningful way. Its therefore a judgement call whether it meets the guidelines - I'd say weak keep, others may legitimately say delete. The only point I'd make is we need to assess the article on its actual content and using the criteria in the current guidelines. Euryalus (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I forgot to check the article itself! I was using the references in the above discussion. the counterpoint radio show would appear to meet the first criteria for WP:NB, just, so I'll change my vote to weak keep. "The reactions are to die for, Paul." lol --Surturz (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It is very difficult to tell the notability of a new non-fiction relatively academic book, unless it becomes an immediate best seller or is published by a very notable author. it takes a few months for reviews to appear in most media, it takes at least a year or so before it is found in most of the libraries that will eventually own it. It takes a few years before it can really be expected to have an influence. The authors are medium-important political philosophers, possibly worthy of Wikipedia articles, but certainly not famous For a book of clearly immediate political interest, I would expect much fuller coverage in australian newspaper sources. . Until then there is no basis for an article, and an attempt to have one for such a title strikes me as promotional, an attempt to use Wikipedia to establish its importance. But I do not understand the argument that a book review is not evidence for notability--two more like that & I'd say keep. DGG (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2008 (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.