Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Game: The NFL in Dangerous Times

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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big Game: The NFL in Dangerous Times

[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)

Contested PROD. Original rationale was "There is no claim to the notability of this book. What is so special about it? Books are written about the NFL all the time." PROD was removed with the rationale: "see Bookmarks". I assume this is an instruction to refer to the article's one source, which is a book review website. The site appears to aggregate all the reviews of a given book fairly indiscriminately, and there is still no substantiation of the claim to notability. – Pee Jay 17:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:BKCRIT with reviews in NYT, WAPO, and WSJ. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm, book reviews are pretty much the very definition of trivial, even if they're in reputable publications. You're trying to tell me getting reviewed by a few newspapers is the equivalent of winning a "major literary award"? That's absolute nonsense. – PeeJay 21:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's long standing consensus that multiple book reviews in important publications qualifies a book for an article under our notability guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reviewed for notability yet - perhaps it will be?, but I did let out a hearty chuckle reading the article. SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And it is notable, with many book reviews. However, this isn't an article worthy of an encyclopaedia right now. SportingFlyer T·C 18:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per El cid, el campeador. Book reviews in major publications attest to its notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Bookmarks review got tossed for some reason (they're a review aggregator like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic), but on the page you can see 10 overall reviews. I agree that the article could use some work, but a stub is better than nothing IMO. Pinging @SportingFlyer:, open to a discussion on Bookmarks. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for that discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Nom says "a few newspapers" like they are not some of the USA's most reputable. The reviews are in reliable sources, thus this is a clear pass. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: (and salt): Essentially as the content is not suitable for an encyclopedic article as it stands. If this stuff was wanted in this form a web bot could scrape off the Bookmarks site and pretty well generate thousands of articles like his. As it stands this is almost totally promotional and very little encyclopedic and merely a directory to other stuff. I doubt it would be accepted at AfC, though the bar is is with good reason a tad higher. Its also a nightmare for the NPP guys as there pretty reluctant to curate it. Its probable most reviews are at book launch, September 2018; though the Leavy TWSJ journal article is 4 January 2019 giving a little spread. It needs more content before its ready for mainspace. I believe the author has pushed through many such articles recently so this is somewhat of test case at AfD. Its also why I suggest draftify and salt. These really needs to get up beyond a one liner stub to somewhere between start and C Class.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the conversation at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Back to Draft? where Onel5969 indicates some guidelines I was unaware of on a re-draftification; though my understanding (and I am pushed for time at the moment) is by Draftifcation !vote here reamins valid; and of course that is a guideline. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark, your interpretation of that discussion is correct. Draftification is a process initiated by a single editor, so opposition to it means the draft must be returned to mainspace. Draftifying through an AfD discussion is by consensus, and so has nothing to do with the review process of draftification. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but it's certainly a problem that articles for so many notable books have been merely created by this editor, without them taking the time to include even a bare minimum of prose about background or writing or reception, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And there's nothing wrong with stubs or short articles--we just need more than a sentence or two initially (although I've probably been guilty of same in the past). Caro7200 (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG with third party articles in major publications. I agree the content needs to be beefed up, but that's an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear pass of WP:GNG and WP:BKCRIT. Article should be expanded somewhat, but the topic is covered in reviews by major publications including The New York Times and the Washington Post. Frank Anchor^Talk 15:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass WP:GNG.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 19:02, 23 June 2021 (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.