Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years

Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years

Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to be an academic book with little independent notability - a couple of very brief reviews in academic publications. Surely minor films and academic texts written about her are best preserved at Emma Goldman JMWt (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This appears to be a massive collection of novel primary sources that has received extensive academic attention. It's described in the first review I clicked on as "an invaluable contribution" to the relevant field and characterized as "particularly unique" for its format and composition. I'll work on expanding the article a little to hopefully clarify its notability. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and Politics. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This doesn't seem any more notable than the previously-published Red Emma Speaks: Selected Writings and Speeches. I'd say that what little there is to say can go on the main article for Emma Goldman. The latter is not too long. Epa101 (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:ATD) would not work here. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I think that you got the wrong end of the stick there. My point is that Red Emma Speaks: Selected Writings and Speeches doesn't have its own article. I was arguing that, if one is not notable enough for its own article, then the other is not. It might be that you do not like this sort of arguing from precedent. It might be that I, being English, am inclined towards the common law method of citing precedents, rather than the civil law method of citing principles. I don't think that Wikipedia favours one or the other though. I have seen others' arguing from precedents in other discussions, so I would dispute that this is invalid. The links to NBOOK and GNG that you give are for guidelines and they have caveats clearly specified at the start. I feel that how they are applied in practice is relevant. Epa101 (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So you are attempting to state that, if

  WP:GNG

  might contradict with your argument, you will proceed to use other methods by comparing one article to another, by using the principle of "common law"? That another topic does not have an article does not mean that it is necessarily non-notable by Wikipedia standards, I'd be interested where you received that information from. And yes, guidelines have common sense exceptions and meeting a notability guideline usually only means that a topic is presumed to have an article, not certainly, and it could be up to editor's discretion, e.g., a longstanding precedent observed in many AfD discussions. But this seems to be main argument, that your benchmark is comparing article X with the notability of article Y.

  But so far you are vaguely stating that you've seen other's arguing from precedents in other discussions- can you link those examples, or are you trying to argue this topic when merged/redirected is covered more cohesively, or are you trying to invoke

  WP:IAR, or something like that? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  No. I don't think that you are following me here, although that is fine. We can disagree and vote in different directions in this system. I am not citing

  WP:GNG, and I'm not the only one. I'm just saying that the way that I tend to decide whether something is "notable" or not is by looking at how this is applied elsewhere. It seems to me that, if we don't do this, then we might not be consistent with which books we decide are notable or not, since how we determine the word "notable" is inevitably determined by our personal biases and different people will make decisions that are inconsistent with one another. I recently participated in this debate on [The Queue]. If you scroll down, there's a lot of comparison with other articles. Epa101 (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

  .

  Moreover, this is the first time you cited guidelines, in the previous arguments you did not refer to NBOOK and GNG being failed (just saying unclearly exceptions to the guideline- what exceptions?). I haven't argued that an argument stating that NBOOK/GNG failed is not policy-based. Your comparison with The Queue is weak. You're missing that many of the arguments cite

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

  ). Some of the votes there were weak, others were strong, but that a few users voted in that way is not a strong justification here IMO.

Finally, your first reply stated that It might be that you do not like this sort of arguing from precedent- it's not just my opinion, I'm sure that you're well-versed in common and civil law compared to me, but that's irrevelant here. Some Wikipedians believe that the

WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, but comparing article X with the notability of article Y is not. Still, let's respectfully disagree, given that you've already determined that you're assessing notability this way. I don't think your arguments will be the most convincing but that's just my POV, of course, let's see how the closer determines the weight of your argument. If you have suggestions on how the notability guidelines could be less ambiguous and more consistent, discussing it on notability talk pages or village pump are great ideas. If your vote could instead contradict the current refs and the ones Beccaynr provided, or reinforce the nominator's argument, it would be more convincing and policy-based, but that's up to you. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Moreover, I'd contend that, while this is obviously your intention, IMHO it might be possible that your argument could potentially be a bit similar with

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is what you are doing here. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep per
  ProQuest 367734728) in The Forward for Vol. 1. Beccaynr (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:NBOOK. That the book might be less notable than its subject is irrelevant. pburka (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per the reviews
  WP:NEXIST, and merging is unnecessary IMO. VickKiang (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The Labour/Le Travail review in the article for Vols. 1 and 2 is 9 pages (pdf now added to the cite). Beccaynr (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your update and addition, now this easily passes

  WP:NBOOK IMO. VickKiang (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep. This book series had
  WP:BEFORE" has not been followed here. czar 03:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, its almost
  SNOWing. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep not quite a
  WP:BKCRIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Beccaynr and VickKiang have made a thoroughly convincing case for a
  WP:NBOOK pass. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: All all users said above. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2022 (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.