Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disenchantment: The Guardian and Israel

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. Davewild (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disenchantment: The Guardian and Israel[edit]

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

Non-notable. One of the two refs is Amazon. Needs at least two non-trivial refs to be WP:NBOOK. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Amazon is linked because it contains the reviews from the Jewish Chronicle and The Economist. AusLondonder (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One word from a review is not a source. The actual reviews need to be cited. I spent about five minutes trying to find the Jewish Chronicle one, but could not. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BKCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found several reviews in newspapers and one in a magazine, all of which are still considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines. Whether or not the Guardian (which is normally a RS) would be usable in this article as a RS is questionable since they're the topic of the book, but I did find a journal article that references the book review so I've added that to the article. I also need to note that the book was used as a reference in this article that was posted in the journal Media History. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears to be cited as a source in several books as well: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this editorial post in the Jewish Chronicle that mentions the original article, which isn't a review but an article that focuses on the book. Through this I was able to find the JC article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It must be pointed out that The Guardian commissioned the book "to justify itself", so any review (e.g. #9) coming in anyway from the The Guardian is worthless. Five other refs are not possible to verify without a subscription. Ref #1 is more a discussion about The Guardian than the book it commissioned. Ref #2 appears to be about the fact that The Guardian commissioned the book about itself. #5 is about The Guardian which uses the book commissioned by The Guardian as a discussion point. One subscription item does state that it is a review of the book, so assuming that one of the other subscription refs is a review, the book passes WP:NBOOK. However, I'm not going to assume that. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my position from Delete to Merge to The Guardian given that it is a bought and paid for Guardian publication. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However at the same time, there are still multiple reviews for this work. I'd initially left the Guardian review in the article because it was interesting, but what made me really highlight the review is that this was covered in an academic journal, Jewish Political Studies Review. This is also relatively frequently cited in various books as a source, which also somewhat counts towards notability. The second source (the book) was more listed to back up the fact that the Guardian commissioned the book. However this source does mention Baram's work quite extensively. It's going to be very, very difficult to find an article of any type that would completely separate the book from the newspaper. There are multiple portions of the article that go into some depth about the book, including this statement: "Baram, a lawyer who is on the far left of Israeli politics, illuminates these issues and produces a picture of a Guardian much more complex than the anti-Jewish monolith of current communal discourse." Also, reference 5 is a book review, labeled as such by the newspaper itself (The Economist). Like I said above, you're going to be very, very hard pressed to find a book that does not talk about the Guardian since discussing the paper will be necessary to actually talk about the book. As for which items are reviews, the Jerusalem Post one is a review (reviews are either labeled as such or will have the book's name and publishing info at the start of the review), as is the New Statesman. I think what you're trying to do here is make several WP:POINTy nominations in order to make NBOOK harder to pass and weaken newspapers as a reliable source, however you will not be able to really do this via AfD. Policy changes of this nature need to be discussed on the applicable pages (WP:NBOOK, WP:RS, WP:RS/N) rather than at AfD. Right now this book passes the notability guidelines for books and newspapers are still considered to be reliable sources. It's extremely rare that an AfD will be the sole reason that a policy changes. I really only know of one AfD that created a new policy and that's the America Deceived AfD- an AfD for a book that failed notability guidelines so hard that even Wikipedia editors from 2006 agreed it was non-notable. This is during a point in time where notability was pretty much based on whether or not something existed. Even then the changes still had to go through the required steps to be considered official and it still required that a large portion of editors participate in the discussion and vote for the changes. (You can see the general debates here.) If you want to make the guidelines stricter then you need to start with a discussion in the right places. AfD is not the correct place for this, not when these guidelines are considered to be pretty standard and solid. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly passes WP:NBOOK at this point given the reviews in the Economist, the New Statesman, and the Jerusalem Post. --Aquillion (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2015 (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.