Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dawkins Delusion?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dawkins Delusion?

The Dawkins Delusion? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Book which meets none of the critera for notability: see Talk:The_Dawkins_Delusion?#Notability_and_article_length. There are no sources, no reviews, no media attention. The only source for this article is the publisher's site. Author is notable; this pamphlet is not. Book is already mentioned on the author's page; nothing verifiable to merge. Also please note the article is being used as a soapbox: the "summary" is a mini-version of the book. The book purports to disprove the bestselling book The God Delusion; the "summary" section in this article for the Is religion evil? section, for example, is 5979 characters (for a book with no reviews at all) compared to The God Delusion summary of 530 characters for the corresponding section in that article. As such this article is also a POV fork of The God Delusion, as it is being used to soapbox against the controversial content of that book. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments a 75pp book by a major author is not a "pamphlet"; the source for the summary is the book itself (obviously - just as it is in TGD), it was published last week so reviews and British Library catalogue will follow shortly. The length of the section complained of has almost halved (and could be shorter were it not for complaints about OR!) but seems irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted - there is no policy which says delete long articles but not short ones! Disagreeing with the content of a book is not a reason for deletion. NBeale 02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • very weak keep. As an atheist interested in the philosophy of religion, I think per notability criteria 5, all the work of Alister McGrath would deserve an article on Wikipedia. However, all other concerns of nominator regarding this article seem valid! --Merzul 13:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    I have to point out that I'm slightly disappointed that none of McGrath's theological books have any articles. In fact, the only books by McGrath that have articles are
    Draw your own conclusions... --Merzul 13:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Well, User:Neural started the one, and User:NBeale started the other, perhaps you can interest one of them, or both of them, in collaborating on an article of a more notable book. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, and they seem to have very different POVs. Anyway, I guess the only conclusion is that Dawkins is right in his response. *ducks* --Merzul 14:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    FWIW there are now 3 more books by McGrath with articles - more help strongly welcomed. Only 2/18 of his books have Dawkins in the title, the same fraction of Dawkins's books with "God" in the title (and another 1/9 has "The Devil"). Dawkins is right in his response in this sense: having no intellectual argument to counter McGrath's criticisms, he responds with a rhetorical attack that will seem witty to his admirers. NBeale 00:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry that's way out! McGrath has authored over 100 books so less that 2% of them have "Dawkins" in the title, compared to over 22% of Dawkins's that have God or the Devil. NBeale 06:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    And 0% with "McGrath" in the title... ;) Still, I agree with you on McGrath's notability, and I was just being a bit sarcastic about the coverage on Wikipedia. You have done well to answer this by starting articles on McGrath's scientific theology; the additional numbers aren't impressive (see Snalwibma's comment below). And in light of Barte's comments below I'm changing to a clear "keep" vote. --Merzul 16:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Interesting ... If McGrath has indeed "authored" (whatever that means) over 100 books before his 55th birthday, that is perhaps very telling. Assuming he didn't start until he was (say) 20, that's a rate of three a year. Which (IMHO) suggests that on the whole a book by McGrath is not notable, and probably not worth a WP article. Just a thought. Snalwibma 09:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This book is not even listed on Amazon.com, and would properly belong in Wikisource, if anywhere. The book plainly is a very weak afterthought to McGrath's earlier book about Dawkins, the earlier book having sold many copies starting immediately after it was published. ... Kenosis 14:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    It is on amazon.co.uk. --Merzul 14:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep for the moment. It's a bit early to delete it. I think the book/pamphlet hasn't yet come out in the USA, and maybe we should wait until it has, and see if it gets reviewed, before getting rid of the article (it is on amazon.co.uk, BTW). But it needs to be kept down to a reasonable length, and not used as the basis for bloggish soapboxery about how Dawkins is evil and incompetent (even if that is what McGrath says in the book - and as far as I can gather from a quick skim, that's about all of any substance that he does say). I share Merzul's concern that only these two books by McGrath are deemed worthy of WP articles. If he is such a notable theological thinker, why are none of his other books worthy of note in their own right? In summary - leave it a month, and then delete if it doesn't meet the criteria. Snalwibma 14:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Barte[1]; at this point in time it doesn't appear notable. If this changes, we can re-create the article. Guettarda 14:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom - soapboxing. And, contrary to Snalwibma, don't wait a month - notability is not something that depends on a book coming out in the USA!!. Emeraude 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It's notable primarily because McGrath is notable. From the look of it, it's only been published in the U.K. thus far, but, once it's landed on the other side of the Pacific, I'm sure it will generate a lot more publicity. It's also less than a month old, so, a lot of reviewers simply might not have gotten around to it yet. I'm taking an eventualist approach to this article; let's reduce the book summary to a reasonable length, as KillerChihuahua suggested, primarily cutting down on the current polemic, essay-like tone. If it doesn't meet notability, size, NPOV, BLP, etc. standards after a month or two, then renominate for AfD. -Severa (!!!) 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The book may eventually become notable with a U.S. edition, but so far, it simply doesn't qualify under WP:BK, not even meeting the exclusionary criteria of a national library catalog listing. At least I couldn't find one in the online British Library catalog.-Barte 15:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Amending to Weak keep and wait, in light of strong Amazon numbers and an interview with A. McGrath in connection with the book on the "Belfast Telegraph" website. In terms of non-trivial outside notice.....it's a start.--Barte 06:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    I couldn't either; of the 121 entries on McGrath listed by the BL, this one is not included. --Merzul 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep About 20 editors have worked on this article (which is surely strong prima facie evidence of notability!), there are 23 references and 16 books are cited in the summary (out of the c 48 that are cited in the book). It has only just been published in the UK so it's understandably not on amazon.com but the pubisher SPCK his highly reputable and the 3rd oldest in England apparently. I agree with Merzul re notability criteria 5, McGrath is one of the world's leading authors on theology - his textbook on Christian Theology is into its 4th Edition since 2001. It would be good if people could work on articles about his other books, but with Dawkins (alas) so topical you can understand the problem. I should add that his book has endorsements from Francis Collins (on the book cover so admittedly a Blurb) but also Michael Ruse and Owen Gingerich which is prima facie additional evidence for notability. (PS I didn't start the article, I was the 6th Editor to work on it, though I have worked quite hard on it). If people don't like the arguments McGrath makes they should deal with this in other way than trying to supress them. Wikipedia users are entitled to the information and to make up their own minds. NBeale 15:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • There are no problems with including McGrath's arguments; the question is here about the notability of the book. I know it hurts when people delete material, but keeping a cool head when responding will be more helpful. It might be that this article is a bit ahead of its time; maybe it might be good idea to move this article to user space for now and put it back once the notability issues are resolved. --Merzul 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • If the book has only just been published, there seems not to have been any time for things to be written about the book itself. An encyclopaedia article by this title is about the book itself. McGrath's arguments from the book should be presented in articles on the topics that McGrath is arguing about, giving them weight in proportion to their acceptance by the world at large. In other words: That the book is a source does not automatically mean that it warrants an article. Encyclopaedia articles about books are for commentary on the books themselves. Uncle G 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless notability can be demonstrated by cites from multiple verifiable reliable sources. If kept, this should be trimmed extensively to a reasonable length. -- The Anome 15:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is a real book by a notable author. It needs major trimming, though. fraggle 16:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This book is currently 226th in sales ranks on UK Amazon [2]. For a book not out a full month yet, that's extraordinary. The notability of the book should not remotely be in question. RGTraynor 20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You are conflating notability and sales. Notability is not popularity, fame, or importance, and is not measured by sales figures. You could make an argument for keeping this article that actually holds some water by showing that multiple non-trivial published works about this book exist. That would satisfy The Anome's concerns, for example. Uncle G 20:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I appreciate you have strong enough views on the subject that you've written an essay, which you've hyperlinked as if it were a Wikipedia guideline or policy. That being said, even accepting the curious argument that popularity is not a factor in determining whether a subject is notable (which I don't), you're seizing upon the "multiple non-trivial published works" guideline (and it is a guideline, not a be-all and end-all official policy) devoid of any other content. Of all the books in existence, this one is in the top 250 of sales in a nation of sixty million people. That's huge. RGTraynor 21:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete •Jim62sch• 20:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. At the *very least* needs major copyedit, because it reads like a plug for a barely notable book(let). - WeniWidiWiki 23:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep book is being discussed widely. Just because it's not out in the U.S. doesn't mean it should go. I wasn't aware this encyclopedia was solely for the U.S. And no doubt it will reach you soon enough. The book has contemporary relevance due to Dawkin's book and the contoversy around it (due to Dawkin's media savvyness.) And McGrath is well-known too. I mean, we have list of museums and on secondlife on here lolMerkinsmum 00:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    If its being discussed widely, perhaps you can provide a source? I can find no mention of it anywhere. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    Seem to be over 23,000 google hits [3] and the amazon.co.uk sales rank has climbed to 114 BTW NBeale 08:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    Google hits is not a source. I followed a ton of GHits; all were blogs discussing The God Delusion, not the McGrath book - even when put in quotes. I see that there is now finally one source on the article besides the publisher - an interview with McGrath. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    A more telling indicator are Google News hits. And here, so far, there isn't much. [4]-Barte 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Which turns up one unbiased source, which I believe (I'll have to check) is the one already in place, and two clearly biased sources, which may still yield something useable. Thanks for checking though. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Non-notable. Madhava 1947 (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but edit for POV "The God Delusion" was a best seller on both sides of the Atlantic. This book is a well publicised response, and key in the debate on religion. An article on the main points of this book and its reception is useful. I see no reason to remove it. It encourages healthy discussion SolarBreeze
    Note the above is the user's 17th edit. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Author is notable and this book is a rebuttal to a well known book.--Ted-m 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • keep because the book will almost certainly become N, because of the popular desire to read this viewpoint.The length is absurd, however, and indicates that the article was not written from an objective POV. Once the article is down to the appropriate 2 or 3 paragraph size, a suitably sized section --not a 5% size paragraph--can then be added of quotation of the views of this author's opponents, as they appear, which they surely will, and then there will be a NPOV. Whether or not the book is intrinsically trivial is not a question for WP to decide.
There doesn't seem to be a rule against editing the article while the debate is in progress, so I just did along the lines just suggested. The gargantuan version is in the page history. DGG 02:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep the article is rather biased and in need of neutrality, but I see no real justification for simply deleting it. McGrath is a noteable author, even if half his books have Dawkins in the title.... Neural 15:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment The book has a strong POV and since the summary is a summary of the book, this POV is made clear. But I think the summary always uses terms like "suggests..." for anything remotely controversial and takes no position on whether the suggestions are valid. I don't think that extensive quotations, thus sanitised, make it a POV article. And to be fair to McGrath, the proportion of his books that have "Dawkins" in the title is exactly the same as the proprtion of Dawkins's books that have "God" in the title (2/18 vs 1/9). NBeale 16:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough, as mentioned above -- it seems to me that the opposition to the book at least from some people stems more from its content than its notability. Which, frankly, stinks. -- John Smythe 01:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongest Keep --SkyWalker 16:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep. Obviously some editing needed, but I see no reason to delete this article. In Cambridge at least, the book is quite high profile. 23:40 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Definite Keep. It's got pages and text, so it's definitly a book, and it's directly related to a world-famous bestseller that is already here. So it's definitly notable. Plus you won't get bonus Dawkins points just for attacking people who point out flaws in his... book... through wikipedia. Tohya 02:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable author. Notable book. Laurence Boyce 20:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I still don't see enough reliable sources to write an article from. Some people here are saying that this book is going to become notable soon, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the book ever becomes notable, then WP:DRV can resurrect the article. — coelacan talk — 06:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment There are 25 refs citing 5 sources for the article (and 13 other reliable sources) and 4 "external links" - mostly not by McGrath - so I honestly don't think lack of sources to write the article is a problem. NBeale 14:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Just asking: has the book gotten any independent reviews anywhere (beyond blogs), online or off?-Barte 15:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable book by serious scholar, only just published. Keep, particularly as the critical reaction will only be becoming clear in the next few weeksLaura H S 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This book is quite high profile in Cambridge at least Think-it-through 21:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Welcome to Wikipedia... :) --Merzul 22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep I don't see any sensible reasons not to keep the article based upon the above discussion. Arguments based on multiplicity, notability, in practical terms are excuses to exclude the content of this article which is citable and categorically very relevant to the God Delusion article. If one is confident of Dawkins and the God Delusion logic, surely his logic can stand the criticism!?!? Mclaugb 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Votes like this really entice me to change from "keep" to "delete", of course I won't do that, because that might even be the intention here; but if that's not the case, and you are interested in this article staying; don't include serious personal attacks in your post. --Merzul 22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Not very notable. Having an article as such here is giving credit to a weak, completely predictable, non-original and uncalled for rebuttal. Rodrigo Cornejo 23:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Disagreeing with the content of a book is not a reason for deletion - see comment by John Smythe above. "not very notable" suggests that it's notable, and if its notable then, according to policy and the nomination for deletion, it should be considered a keep. NBeale 23:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Aside from the rather looking glass argument above, there's little evidence that the case for deletion here is being waged on the basis of content. That assertion seems, um, faith-based.-Barte 00:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
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.