Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Brows

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Brows[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)

Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Searches found nothing. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 14:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I referenced the article as part of the WP:FEB24 drive (shameless plug) and put the notability tag on it. The stub's current source was among the few/only I could find, and that is a footnote mention halfway through a 300-page doctoral thesis. See also this WP:PROMO comment on the article's talk page from its creator, Corsair1944: [The author] is quite popular among Catholic readers. Wikipedia prides itself on being a repository of information, and this article, though very short, does give potential readers a sketch of what this particular book is about. ~~As a WP:ATD, I would oppose a redirect to Bruce Marshall (writer): it is inappropriate as a result of possible confusion with Highbrow. Thus, delete per nominator.~~ IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, most, if not all, of the entries in Category:Novels by Bruce Marshall could be prodded or brought to AfD, and Template:Bruce Marshall could be a candidate at TfD if most of the entries are suppressed. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IgnatiusofLondon (talk · contribs), for any articles in Category:Novels by Bruce Marshall and Template:Bruce Marshall, I recommend searching for sources in the British Newspaper Archive and Newspapers.com (access to both can be requested through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library), which is where I found all of these sources. I recommend taking any articles to AfDs (which draws a larger audience) rather than doing a prod or a bold redirect (which much fewer editors will notice). Cunard (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's once again excellent contribution. I didn't realise the Wikipedia Library could be quite so revelatory, and I will sign up. Sounds like this is a Futon bias case. My only other thought is WP:OLDBOOK seems to skirt the question of reviews, and might need fuller discussion by the community. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 100 yr old book, I couldn't find much of anything about it. Only hits to various type of highbrow people. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Scotland. Skynxnex (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NBOOK. A newspapers.com search showed nothing useful, though the title makes searching a bit annoying. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This 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.
Sources
1. "To-day's Novel". Liverpool Daily Post. 1929-05-28. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "To give his hero a point of view, Mr. Bruce Marshall, in "High Brows" (Jarrolds, 7s 6d net), makes him a poor man suddenly grown rich, who "gate crashes" his way into Society. Mr. Marshall calls his book an extravaganza and his publishers call it a satire. Between the two it is a lively piece of work that is the better for being read, quickly. The amusement to be had from reading of the Archdeacon whose duties seem to be not at all, in, the Parliamentary phrase, archidiaconal, but to consist of preaching in a London cathedral, calling his bishop "Freddy," drinking very much whisky, and writing any number of popular articles for the very popular Press; or from reading of the actress whose forte is undressing and sitting in a bath on the stage for ten minutes a night; or from Mr. Marshall's hero's curious and casual love affairs with one woman after another in the hectic circle; or from the faithful reproduction of the sophisticated chatter of superficially "advanced" circles interested in uplift"; all this amusement is not deep, but it tickles the mental palate agreeably and has a topicality that the au, or seems eager to disclaim in a foreword. If the persons in his book are drawn from the life, as they certainly seem to be, there is the question of good taste to consider, but Mr. Marshall half admits and haif denies that they are. We can take that equivocal word for it; and in the meantime we are able to enjoy a book that should have, to alter another now well-known phrase, a tendency to shock those whose minds are open to such shocking influences."
2. "Our Modern Leaders". The Aberdeen Press and Journal. 1929-06-03. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The review notes: "High Brows. By Bruce Marshall. Jarrolds: 7s 6d. One thinks of this novel of contemporary life in adjectives, a whole string of them. Clever, acute, amusing, scathing, cynical—immoral if you like, but immoral with the purpose of an artistic morality. ... Mr Marshall has permitted himself to use exaggeration to drive home his satirical purpose. He has enjoyed writing this book, and the reader will enjoy reading it. It is like a Congreve comedy of manners, risky, downright upon occasion, but leaving behind it no ill-effects, and a rich sense of amusement. Into a framework of contemporary skits is set the story of Thomas Osgood, of Edinburgh, an unprincipled young rascal, who, by virtue of a Spanish lottery and gate-crashing, enters the upper strata of those who figure in the press, and finds his experiences more interesting than edifying. The dialogue is sparkling, unusually witty, and always rich in unexpectedness."
3. Lloyd, J. A. T. (1929-05-28). "Recent Fiction". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: ""High Brows" follows the very latest recipe for fiction with a few pleasant variations. Osgood, the hero, backed by a prize in a Spanish lottery and several glasses of kümmel, crashes quite literally into London society as an uninvited guest at a house in Mount-street. Here Lady Tanis Tynecastle, the fantastically rich daughter of the house, falls in love with him at sight, but does not actually propose to him until the end of the book. Osgood talks in the "Wildean manner," the sort of manner that would make the author of "De Profundis " writhe in his grave. On the other hand, the musical comedy actress, Eve Stanton, is genuinely funny. "I always write my own bath salts testimonials and things," she confides to Osgood. The author is frequently handicapped by the process of applying satire to what is already caricature. Still, "High Brows" certainly contains excellent specimens of prize idiots in notoriety. The arch-deacon, for example, is a masterpiece in his way, with an incongruous hint of being rescued from the maelstrom of his own platitudes."
4. Straus, Ralph (1929-05-29). "The High Brows' Charter". Bystander. Vol. 102, no. 1328. p. 488. ProQuest 1689127679. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The review notes: "Perhaps it is. Perhaps, too, Mr. Bruce Marshall is quite right to call his new novel just High Brows (Jarrolds: 7s. 6d.), for the queer folk at whom he is poking such excellent fun do, and are, most of these things. And, personally, I found his book quite unusually diverting—a wickedly satirical commentary on affairs as they are, or, rather, as certain of the newspapers would have us believe they are, today. There is exaggeration, of course, in its portraits and scenes the author himself calls the book an extravaganza—but there is also much that is shrewd, and, as he has not disdained to weave quite a nice and most up-to-date little story about these "distinguished" creatures who are not to be identified with real people, the novel ought to appeal to all sorts of brows."
5. Underhill, Evelyn (1929-06-13). "A Lottery Winner". The Daily News. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The review notes: "High Brows." By Bruce Marshall, Jarrolds. 7s. 6d. Thomas Osgood, clerk in a provincial firm of sanitary engineers, wins £250,000 in the Pentecost Spanish Lottery, and straightway leaves his petty, humdrum existence and makes for the social and intellectual world of which he has always dreamed. He invests in a Rolls-Royce, scented baths and silk pyjamas, acquires as his mistresses the brightest particular stars of the musical comedy stage, and enters London's most exclusive set of Bright Young People, providing Mr. Bruce Marshall with an opportunity of painting a light-hearted caricature of contemporary society."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow High Brows to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the sourcing Cunard identified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's great work finding refs. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:38, 26 February 2024 (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.