Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pygmy Kitabu

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 redirect to Jean-Pierre Hallet#Pygmy Kitabu. As the only editor arguing for keep has merged the content, redirect seems to be the consensus here. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pygmy Kitabu[edit]

Unnotable book that fails all options of WP:BK. This book has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself" (1) and it has not won any "major literary awards" (2). It also has not "been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country." Editors to the article claim the documentary Pygmies is based on the book, though the creator of the film, Hallet, does not actually say that. He says he wrote the book on the Efé Pygmies, then also wanted to make a documentary on them to provide a "visual depiction" shortly before the government planned to ban any photographing of them.[1] Either way, it is not a major film, having only been shown in one or two theaters in San Francisco of unknown commerical status. So it fails option 3. The book also has not he been "the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country" (4).

Finally, Jean-Pierre Hallet is not "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." Some editors on the article claim he is, however as I noted to them "So historically significant' would apply to people like Mother Theresa, the Pope, Shakespeare, Abe Lincoln, etc. who have are written about in history books Not a single humanitarian in a relatively obscure field who is not himself the subject of multiple books and with significant coverage in reliable sources." The reply was to accuse me of being prejudiced against the Pygmies, rather than provide any evidence this humanitarian is notable. A Google search does not support these claims at all, so the book fails criteria 5. Is Hallet notable? Certainly. Is he is "so historically significant" that all of his books are also notable? No. As such, this article should be deleted.

Additionally, it should be noted that there is an open suspected sockpuppetry case against the three major contributors to this article at -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant to the content of the article regarding the Pygmy Kitabu book. Nutsheller (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppetry case is relevant to the AfD, in case of a bunch of SPA's coming to say keep and keep. The book may not be trivial, but it is still not notable. The author's notability does not confer to his book. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to author. The book and film seem to be non-notable. All the information is in the author's article, Jean-Pierre Hallet. Although that needs more sourcing as well. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book differs in being a scholarly treatise referenced by another review textbook and used in University-level syllabi (cf. below). As such, it has a greater level of relevance than a footnote to the author's biography. Nutsheller (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this useful search term. Either keep or merge with the author's article. Pburka (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book is a scholarly ethologic/sociologic treatise on one of the oldest civilizations. It is referenced in a modern textbook on the history of language and in other sources, such as Websters Online dictionary and previously on Wikipedia itself in another context. It was reviewed in American Anthropologist. It is not a trivial book. It has been translated into 21 languages, including Chinese and Russian. The book and the film are the subject of a university-level course at San Jose State University and a sociology course at the university of Hawaii, which automatically fulfills the Wikipedia criteria for notability ("the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country"). Jean-Pierre Hallet has been recognized with Zaire's highest national award, is internationally recognized as a humanitarian (by the California Academy of Sciences among others), and was active throughout his life in eastern Congo, Rwanda and Burundi. He has raised millions of dollars for the Pygmies and succeeded in securing a national sanctuary for them within the Congo. He has actually been described as the Abe Lincoln of the Congo by an independent source. Wikipedia is quicker to allow articles about meerkats (or anime characters) than about such humanitarians and their books.Nutsheller (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The movie was shown in Los Angeles and San Francisco (you claim above that it was shown only in San Francisco). A small run, yes. But don't create false facts. That is unethical. Furthermore, you are asserting a negative as fact. The book Pygmy Kitabu and the movie Pygmies were released in the same year, on the same topic, by the same author, with the same intent. It is unreasonable to contend that the movie was not largely based on the book, even if it is not credited explicitly (which neither you nor I can ascertain or disprove, since the credits of the movie are not before us.)Nutsheller (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create false facts. It was shown one time in LA, per the article, which anyone else can read for themselves. It is unreasonable to "content" the movie was based on the book when the author and creator himself didn't say so. The burden is not on other editor do "disprove", but on you to provide reliable sources backing up your claim that is NOT supported by the very source you claim does. And stop sticking your remarks in the middle of other people's comments. Its rude and makes it very difficult to follow a conversation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems appropriate at this point. Even super-notable and important authors that are household names don't necessarily merit an article about everything they have written. I haven't seen anyone suggest that Jean-Pierre Hallet himself doesn't merit an article. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not. But Wikipedia criteria does allow for that, espeically concerning the most notable book or two of that historically significant figure, especially if its largely the basis for a scientific documentary. Further, the notability guidelines are based on common sense and reasonability. Failure to satisfy a criteria is expressly not a reason for speedy deletion. However, this book already meets multiple criteria: notable figure, basis for movie, subject of university level courses, and referenced in other independent scholarly works. All these are documented in the Talk section for the article. Collectonion is being over-zealous and hair-splitting in trying to get it deleted. That is known as Wikipedia:WikiLawyering and detracts from reasonably evaluating the content of an article.Nutsheller (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to your concerns and might even change my opinion at some point soon. To you I'd recommend improving the hell out of the article and its sources (an endeavor with which I may even help you) and stepping away somewhat from the AfD debate. Accusation and bickering are rarely successful tactics on Wikipedia. And please sign your comments. It shouldn't really effect the credibility of your arguments to other editors but I think it does if only on a subconscious level. - House of Scandal (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also stay focused. A comment such as (for example) "He has raised millions of dollars for the Pygmies" would be relevant to the Jean-Pierre Hallet article but doesn't speak directly to the notability of a specific book. I hope these comments are helpful. - House of Scandal (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, an individual that raises millions of dollars to secure a national preserve and receives a national medal for his efforts is historically significant, and that is expressly one of the criteria for notability of a book authored by that individual. -Nutsheller (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing with the person who offered to help you is a pretty foolish tactic. I almost certainly could have saved this article. It's something I do. As is, I am betting it will get deleted. Ciao. - House of Scandal (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stay focused. You also have made this personal and involved your ego. This isn't about you or me. It is about the article and an extremely important book.Nutsheller (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The asserted SJSU course page does not mention the author or the book. The asserted Hawaii course includes it only as one on a long list of readings. The other references discuss either the general subject, or the author, not the book. a single short review in AA is not sufficient for notabiity. The awards is for the author, not the book. He's a notable person, but t he';s a very large gulf between that and "historically significant". I see no way the article could be written to make it acceptable, as the book is simply not notable enough independently. DGG (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"September 10 -- 'Pristine' Religions, Animism and Ritual -- [Description of lecture]... The films of Jean-Pierre Hallet." Pygmy Kitabu is listed in the right column.Nutsheller (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today the featured article on Wikipedia is Palpatine, a fictional character in a Star Wars movie or something like that. Your perception of historically significant may be in line with some other users of Wikipedia, I suppose... Nutsheller (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merged -- fine. The article on the book was merged into that of the author, as well as his other works (other books, films, music ethnologies).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutsheller (talk • contribs) 09:31, July 13, 2008

As a note, Nutsheller has merged the content into the author's article and redirected the Pygmy Kitabu. I've undone the redirect, however, until the AfD closes to avoid confusion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:08, 14 July 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.