Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Tremor of Bliss

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. Consensus is that this book meets notability standards and that the article should be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Tremor of Bliss

[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)

This is a book found in 32, count ‘em 32 libraries on worldcat. It is not in itself worth an article, except as part of Sagecandor’s coatracking program. Qwirkle (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WorldCat lists books currently owned by libraries. what it does not take into account is the fact that popular works of fiction and of nonfiction, including bestsellers, will be owned in multiple copies by a large number of libraries for a few years, then deaccessioned by all but a handful of libraries of record. Even scholarly books regarded as imporant 50 or 100 years ago will be deaccessioned by most libraries when they fall from fashion.

E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn’t 50 or a hundred years, it’s eight, this isnt a bestseller in the general sense, its something that popped up for one month a a relatively specialized, obscure list. By comparison, Richard Rohr’s work from the same list has 10 times the holdings, and not surprisly, was viewed as notable from its publication. By contrast, this book only became “ notable” when a banned sockpuppet decided to use it for coatracking. Why you feel compelled to defend something eligible for speedy deletion escapes...or perhaps, it doesn't. Qwirkle (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly books are kept longer. Popular nonfiction is accessioned by many libraries when people stop taking it out, within a few years of publication. But I was only explaining why we don't rely on WorldCat as a metric. My Keep and that of others is based on SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First of all, we should be assessing notability based on secondary coverage, not the number of libraries on worldcat. I'll let others assess notability, but IF editors decide this topic is not notable, please just redirect the page to Mark Judge (writer) instead of deleting altogether. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two or three points. First, the fact that a book squeaks by wikipedia standards for notability is seldom proof that it needs its own article. Next, minimal library coverage isn’t an infallible indicator, but it is a rather broad hint. Finally, note that there -is- an unquestionably notable book with the same foretitle, which, of course, isn’t on wiki, and its author, unquestionably more notable than Judge in real life, is stubletized on wiki. This article is a coatrack; it only exists to push politics on Wikipedia. Qwirkle (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: But, if the book has received sufficient secondary coverage, then we should have an article. I'm not saying the article should not be changed/improved if there are neutrality concerns, but we're discussing notability here, yes? I'm less concerned about a different book of the same name, unless of course some of the content in this article is actually about the other book (mistakenly or otherwise). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, just because something or someone is notable does not mean he, she, or it [must] have its own article. Qwirkle (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow, but I'll let others decide. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand Qwirkle's reason for wanting to delete this article. I vote keep based on below comments. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such a the Washington Times, Washington Post, Publishers Weekly, First Things, Intercept, Daily Caller, so easily passes WP:GNG. No valid reason for deletion except WP:IDONTLIKEIT Atlantic306 (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That initial coverage was so significant that there were 32 copies of the book listed in Worldcat. Almost all news coverage relates to the Kavanagh hearing. This was not a significant work before it became politicized. Why should it have a separate article? (Aside from using Wikipedia to pander to partisan politics, of course.) Qwirkle (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book was reviewed when it was published in 2010, and did make one of Publisher's Weekly's lists, "Catholic" bestsellers. It would not have passed WP:NBOOK at that time. But it came into the news during the Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings and was discussed INDEPTH by major, mainstream media. So it passes WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is an argument to merge it, or move content unique to it, if any, to a piece on Judge, or Kavenaugh, per WP:NOPAGE. Qwirkle (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage at multiple sources that are reliable. this one passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The nominator fails to present a policy-based argument and appears to be trying to make a point against Sagecander. A momentary glance of the article’s references would tell anyone this meets NBOOKS.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:43, 15 December 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.