Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trenton Pickle Ordinance and Other Bonehead Legislation

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. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Trenton Pickle Ordinance and Other Bonehead Legislation[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)

The book has no discernible claim of notability and no sources other than the book itself. A Google search turned up nothing useful to add to the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added some sources; let me know what you think. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Satisfies NBOOK with multiple book reviews. The fact the book has gone through multiple editions is relevant to TBK. The article has been expanded since nomination and could be expanded further still. James500 (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- James500, I had seen the same reviews, but they all seem to be passing mentions, not the in-depth coverage specified by WP:NBOOK. Which sources / reviews do you believe satisfy notability? Alansohn (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reviews are significant coverage. I am sure you can see them, but try, in particular, the book reviews in "N.D. Journal of Legislation" and "Teaching elementary language arts: a literature approach" and "Church and Synagogue Libraries". There is also coverage in "American Flint" and "CPA Journal", in particular, and a considerable degree of anthologisation. None of this could be described as a passing mention. Incidentally, the actual wording of the guidelines is "non-trivial treatment" not "in depth" and it is not a licence to demand unreasonably large amounts of coverage. By long standing consensus which has always been followed at AfD the correct approach to criteria 1 of NBOOK is that two book reviews of normal length will suffice. (Indeed the guideline says "This includes book reviews"). I count at least three book reviews of normal length, so this AfD is over. James500 (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Richard Hyman (aka Dick Hyman) (b 1904 or 1907) also published other reviewed books and publications (such as "Looney Laws" (1946 or 1947) partly compiled from his "It's the Law" column in American Magazine), is included in biographical dictionaries (such as Contemporary Authors), and appears to be notable. James500 (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - My motives in making this article: firstly, I remember the book being somewhat recognizable among people I used to know in the '90s and early 00's. I was given one of the later editions of the book as a birthday gift one year. Last week I picked up the book and I suddenly began to get the creeping suspicion that this book of 600 nonsensical laws might not be as credible as I and those around me back in the Clinton years once thought it was. The idea for the book seems to be based on the author's incredulity about a strange law he encountered forty years prior to publishing. My guess is, after that incident, the author just wrote down whatever random strange laws people told him existed-- meaning: no fact checking. In the book, the author says he has a file of 2000 laws, but that he picked the best 600. Originally I was hoping to find a snopes-type article that would shoot down this book, but I didn't find it. -- I was hoping that by creating this wikipedia article, someone would eventually add sources to articles that will have done the homework to confirm or deny both the popularity of the book and the factuality of the statements in the book. -- If there is anything I can do to keep the article going, let me know. If it really isn't worth it, I will not be offended if it needs to be deleted.Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't need to be deleted: The book is plainly notable. (For that matter, so is the author). From what I can gather Hyman published many books and magazine articles on this subject over a long period of time. His books have been reviewed by university law reviews (amongst others) and stocked by university law libraries such as NYU eg [1]. I haven't found any indication that Hyman's book is not trustworthy yet, and I suggest that speculation about fact checking is not helpful, particularly as it has no relevance to notability, since the coverage (eg in university law reviews) is obviously reliable. What might help is to add to the article those book reviews and similar coverage not already included. Hyman's books on this subject are obviously very popular because of the large number of editions and sequels published. You would not publish a new edition of or sequel to a book unless the previous ones had sold well. James500 (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are heaps of full reviews available on Newspapers.com (a lot of duplications, but lots of different reviews too). Some examples: [2], [3], [4], [5]. This covers WP:BOOKCRIT#1. › Mortee _talk 20:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see some coverage in books[6] though it is not that easy to determine if coverage is significant or just passing mention. Sdmarathe (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't access the newspapers.com references. Of the others, the Inkslingler blog is not reliable, and the other mentions are trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where else they might be available, but the four I linked to are 1) a four-column article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2) a two-column article in the Anderson Herald, 3) a three-column article in the Journal and Courier (Lafayette, Indiana), 4) a three-column article in The Morning Call (Allentown, Pennsylvania) › Mortee _talk 11:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The others are book reviews and they are not remotely trivial. Criteria 1 of NBOOK is completely clear about this. James500 (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not. Ref 1 (HeinOnline) is about a different book entirely (The American Legislative Process, by Keefe and Ogul), perhaps the reference is wrong. The link matches the page number and volume in the ref. Ref 2 (CPA Journal) mentions the title only in a footnote, as one of several books by this author on this subject. Refs 3-6 are the newspapers.com refs. Ref 7 is the book itself, clearly not an independent source. Ref 8 is a list of interesting books at the University of Wisconsin's library (by that library), the coverage of the book You can also find books that take a look at the lighter side of the law, such as Legally Correct Fairy Tales and The Trenton Pickle Ordinance and Other Bonehead Legislation. These works are located on the third floor in the call number range KF/184..., as well as, on the second floor at call numbers PN/6231/L4.... is clearly trivial. Ref 9 is a Wordpress blog that simply quotes from the book. Ref 10 is some quotes in an interview on TheDailyBell, a site that focuses its news on deprogramming the lies from the corrupt state and complicit mainstream media. None of these references are sufficient to meet GNG, and none are book reviews. You are simply wrong and I would like you to retract that statement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, we have completely misunderstood each other. I thought you were talking about the book reviews in GBooks, not the references in the article. James500 (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:NBOOK, per recent article improvements. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2018 (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.