Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Police

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Police[edit]

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

Non-notable. The reviews cited are little more than advocacy pieces using the book as a back drop. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book has received reviews in multiple newspapers such as The Times, Sydney Morning Herald, and New Statesman. The LRB piece is a review, although it is wordier than most. The one from Peace News might not be usable entirely since I can't really verify the magazine's editorial policy, although the magazine is certainly notable. In any case, there is enough with the news articles to where the book would pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - Tokyogirl79 has added enough sourcing, that even though I am still dubious about the reviews, I would not object to a speedy close. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - (Creator) Unfortunately, this appears to be yet another clearly vexatious nomination. Per WP:BEFORE, before nominating an article for deletion an editor is required to 'Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability' which does not seem to have taken place. Thanks to Tokyogirl79 for adding the sources, however I would like to indicate to the nominator that the article was clearly notable before the reviews were added. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By any real sense of the word notable, this book is most definitely not notable. The problem is that Wikipedia book notability is absurdly easy to meet. For example, ref #2 added by Tokyogirl79 is the only review I can find by that reviewer. The review does not appear to have been in the print edition. Of the ~23 recent reviewers at the paper, only one or two had more than one review published on the web site. In other words, the review is on a web site that will publish pretty much any coherent submission. Many, if not most, of the reviews on the articles I AfDed are about the same as #2 here. Unfortunately, these reviews technically meet WP:NBOOK, which is why this article will end up being kept. To get your book on Wikipedia, all you have to do is get two friends (or do it yourself by using false names) to submit reviews to the web sites of numerous small to mid size newspapers until each gets accepted. So no, the nominations were not vexatious, but simply an attempt to keep little know/read books from cluttering up Wikipedia. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Sydney Morning Herald, so it's a reliable source regardless of whether it was in print or only on their website. Again, newspapers are reliable sources and it's really, REALLY not that easy to get reviews published in a newspaper. Most papers are pretty exclusive in who and what they will have published, regardless of whether it's print or electronic. Even if the person only wrote one review, that review is still usable as a reliable source if the newspaper published the article in any format. I know that you dislike newspaper sources (to the point where it appears to be a strong bias) and you might mean well, but right now newspapers are considered reliable sources for articles. If you want that to be changed, you need to bring this up at WP:RS or WP:RS/N. If this was say, The Patch, then I'd be inclined to agree with you on that but the SMH is the oldest newspaper in Australia and has a very high distribution rate. I hate to say this, but your argument against many of the book AfDs you've participated in essentially boils down to "I don't like newspapers"- despite the fact that newspapers are considered a very strong reliable source on Wikipedia. You're not going to change policy based on these AfDs, so any WP:POINT you're trying to make with these AfDs is likely going to be seen as disruptive. If you want these articles deleted you're going to have to change policy first- and that's going to take a very, very long time and need some extremely persuasive arguments since you're arguing that some very notable and established newspapers should be considered unreliable/unusable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A circulation of 132,000 is a very high distribution rate? Space in a print edition has a high cost. Space on a web site is all but zero cost (even just a couple clicks on it will more than pay the cost). The "Undercover" reviews are basically nothing more than entries on the paper's "Undercover" editor's blog. The "Undercover" blog actually calls itself a blog. She alone decides what reviews are put on her "Undercover" blog. It's nothing more than a technicality (i.e., the web site the blog is on is owned by a newspaper) that makes it a valid ref. My problem is not with newspaper print editions; it is with the blogs of individual newspaper editors being regarded the same as actual newspaper content. Given that there is zero chance of making any significant change to WP:NBOOK, I'm not foolish enough to tilt at windmills. Frankly, you have utterly misunderstood where I am coming from, and completely fail to understand how simple it is to get on somebody's blog. My issue is not with newspapers, but with blog postings on web sites being confused with actual newspaper content. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a review is published through a newspaper then it's considered a reliable source. A review from the Sydney Morning Herald is not the same as say, a book review from Katie's Book Blog or a random review on Goodreads or Amazon. While a review of any sort is ultimately an opinion, a newspaper review undergoes much stricter criteria than a self-published source. It must go through an editorial staff for factchecking/accuracy claims and the reviewer needs to take more than their own viewpoint into consideration. The newspaper will also be more selective in who they allow to write a review. For example, despite claims that anyone could get a review published in a newspaper, odds are extremely high that if you were to try to submit a review you would more than likely be declined. If it were that easy to get work published then there's be far, far more freelancers out there writing book reviews and articles and fewer people trying to put stuff in blogs, wikis, and the like. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the circulation numbers you're citing does not include the Saturday edition (228,000) or the Sunday edition (264,434). It's no New York Times, but that's nothing to sniff at. And again, a newspaper is not the same thing as a self-published source. The average newspaper is fairly discerning in who and what they publish, even on their websites. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since what you're trying to assert goes against the currently established policy, I'll bring this up for you at WP:NBOOK and WP:RS. If you want to change policy you need to start there, not here. If the policies are changed then you can come back and re-nominate these articles, assuming that the consensus here is to keep- which is likely. If you are not going to try to change policy then there's really no point to any of this. A newspaper website is not the same thing as a blog. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bring this up at RS/N first, actually. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are saying that a self admitted blog is not a self admitted blog if it has any thing at all to do with a newspaper. I am okay with that, I guess, if that is literally how WP:NBOOK defines what is or is not a blog. Hey, it would not be by very far the worst interpretation of a WP policy that I have dealt with. If insanity it is, then insanity it shall be. Note that I had already consented to a speedy close on this prior to the start of this thread; I show WP:FAITH and get none in return. Par for the course. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:VMS Mosaic - The article in The Times of London is by David Aaronovitch a very well-known journalist, commentator and columnist in the UK. The book received significant coverage in the media. It just is not true to say this book is not notable, regardless of your ludicrous conspiracy theories about submitting false reviews. Have you got a print copy of every edition of the Sydney Morning Herald from around that time to prove it was not in the paper? Why don't you submit a review to The Guardian and see if they post it online? To suggest this book is 'little known/read' borders on the laughable. AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not the reviews are 'advocacy pieces' as the OP says is irrelevant to whether they establish notability; the coverage in numerous reliable mainstream periodicals still illustrates that the book itself is noteworthy. --Aquillion (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. meets WP:GNG, reviews cited makes it notable.Coolabahapple (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per AusLondoner. GregJackP Boomer! 18:44, 17 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.