Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bend, Not Break

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 procedural close. AfD is not the proper process for a discussion on whether or not to redirect and there has been no valid argument for deletion expressed. The proper forum is the article talk page, with merge to/from templates placed on the appropriate articles. In addition, an RfC template can be placed to attract additional editors to comment. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bend, Not Break[edit]

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

This is somewhat of an odd nomination, but one I thought necessary given the situation. I personally view this book as notable, as it meets several of the qualifications for WP:NBOOK. It has received multiple reviews from reliable sources and after the controversy about the book became known, it got a ton of coverage about that as well. The previous incarnation of this article was a talk page and people attempted to speedy it on that basis, but I've done a complete re-write to where none of the original content remained. One of the editors on the Ping Fu article has requested that this be redirected as a WP:POVFORK, saying that it's redundant since it's a memoir of Fu. (See Talk:Bend, Not Break.) There have also been concerns over the neutrality of the current article and its potential to be used again as an attack page. Rather than wait a few days and continue a back and forth that I feel will ultimately be unproductive, as both of us have directly opposite viewpoints, I'm cutting this short and bringing it here for an official discussion. I think that this has merit as a standalone entry separate from its author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is to redirect it then I'll accept that, but I think that this merits a fuller discussion than just the talk page.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article as it is now is well written, neutral and referenced and the book is notable on its own. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the nominator says, "it has received multiple reviews from reliable sources" and appears to meet WP:NBOOK. We use article protection and other remedies to avoid the "potential to be used again as an attack page", not deletion. Yworo (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was asked to chime in here because I previously nominated the other page creations as a promo. They were no where near being attack pages and I removed the tags there as such. This actually has significant coverage in multiple respected journals and sources so there is no reason at all it shouldn't have a standalone article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - ~~as much as I respect Tokyogirl79, I feel she is wrong here.~~ The book is inherently notable on its own; it will be perfectly possible for this to be kept under control with semi-protection. Being controversial is never a reason for deletion. I agree that the article needs to focus mostly on the book - but as an autobiography, it should reference the author as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if some of you can come chime in on the talk page, I'd be much obliged.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She actually said she thought it was notable...my understanding is that she did this to preempt a lot of wasted back and forth on the issue on the talkpage and just have out the deletion concerns. She was assisting a newer editor with this Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The big kerfuffle on the talk page is over the term "critic". I don't want to drag this into here, but it's basically the other editor assuming that "critic" equals out to "reviewer". I'm somewhat concerned over the cherrypicking of what terms are or aren't acceptable, as I feel that splitting hairs in this manner is somewhat WP:POINTy. And I do see this as notable and as neutral as the accusations and subject matter can be, it's just that there's a big argument on the talk page about whether or not the current content is neutral and whether or not the current terms could be misinterpreted as an attack. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comments about Tokyogirl being mistaken were more to do with the WP:SURMOUNTABLE vandalism issues. I fully understand why it was brought to AfD: I hadn't, however, spotted the fact that there was essentially a "keep" vote even in the nomination. I've struck that part of my comment, and I suggest that the diffs containing the vandalism entry are revdelled due to their WP:ATTACK nature. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect A couple of notes: First, I marked the pages Hell in a Bucket mentioned as "attack", because they were laying a foundation for an attack. All the statements in the the pages were unverifiable WP:OR with no English language citation, and carefully crafted to be contradictory with what Ping Fu wrote in Bend, Not Break. Second, I'm "the other editor", and I did not assume that "critic" equals out to "reviewer". Tokyogirl79, please assume good intentions on my part. Accusing me of cherrypicking or WP:point is not very civil. On the article in question: it has big problems with accuracy, POV, and verifiability. The synopsis is completely uncited, and includes at least 5 inexcusable errors. While the article does cite WP:RS reviews, it also cites sources where the writers direct their criticism to Ping Fu personally, rather than to the book. The article casually conflates the book Bend, Not Break with Ping Fu personally, in a way that appears will be very difficult to fix, and even more difficult to maintain. Finally, I object to the process by which this article has been created. WP:POVFORK says "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article." This one is worse -- it is both consensus-dodging and protection-dodging. It was created by a user with a new WP:SPA, who was WP:gaming the system to get around the protection put on the Ping Fu page just yesterday. I assume good faith on the part of the nominator, that she did not know this background, but the article should have been redirected to start with. As of now, the best option is still to redirect it. But, short of doing that, it should be protected, and stubbed. VanHarrisArt (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked a few times for what was an attack, or even a foundation for an attack? Right now you calling the account making the articles a SPA seems a little like the pot calling the kettle black considering your only edits are related to this issue [[1]] and strikes of a COI. Nothing says one way or another that even with a COI or SPA you can't edit but the fact is that this article is now superior in every way to those other pages and ultimately makes your rationale moot, there are several very experienced editors that now have the page on their watchlist that will ensure it doesn't become one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to the note about "what was the attack" in your user talk page. Regarding my account: Thanks for asking. It's a WP:sock#legit alternative account for privacy, to prevent harassment. To keep things above board, I contacted the Arbitration Committee about it on February 17. You have my permission to run a WP:CheckUser to verify my identity. Regarding WP:COI - I have no financial nor close personal ties with the subject of the article, and you can check my contributions to verify that they are NPOV.

As for the article being superior to other articles that were written with the sole intention of disparaging a subject: that's not hard. The article is a mess, as I've pointed out in its talk page. VanHarrisArt (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2013 (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.