Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient History (novel)

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. -Scottywong | comment _ 17:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient History (novel)

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

Delete due to lack of notability in accordance with WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Initially redirected to author was reverted. Cindy(talk to me) 22:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - while I could find a couple of bits and pieces, this one doesn't look to have been as widely considered as Women and Men (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women and Men). There is a little bit in this book, this book and this book. There is also a Kirkus Reviews entry here - not sure whether this is sufficient (Kirkus is included in the list of journals cited by WP but I can't find a definitive statement about its reliability as a source). I did find a few other blog-style reviews (like this) but not a whole lot else. There might be more but I could only find passing mentions beyond that. Am a bit on then fence but am generally in favour of Keep, so that's what I'll put down. That said, there are no sources currently listed for the article so that would have to be fixed - the original author has completely failed to meet the burden of proof, despite claiming to be a long-term IP editor who has only recently joined WP. The attitude of that editor toward Cindy has been poor (to say the least), given the total lack of effort they have putting into sourcing their long tracts of WP:OR. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Article creator here, so you know my vote:

As I said in my response to Cindamuse (on my user talk page, since Cindamuse didn't do the Wikipedia thing of discussing the issue on the article's talk page itself), I was going to be gone until today (Rosh Hashanah). Gone as in 100% gone. My attitude was what she earned: she took extremely drastic, one-way action, not even bothering to tell me her reason for erasing my edits (except in the redirect history "Edit summary" remark that got hidden by the redirect). A boilerplate there "may" be a problem with guidelines is not a reason.

Anyway, it was reviewed in the NYT [1] behind a paywall. I'm not a subscriber--I assume it's acceptable to take the dust jacket quote from that review that shows up in many of the later McElroy novels? I will if people insist. It was the subject of academic analysis in the Review of Contemporary Fiction, special Joseph McElroy number (1990, vol 10, #1, I think). Again, I will give exact citations if people want. (I'm sure these should all make it into the article eventually, and I expect I will do so at some point. I just think it's silly doing so up front, for the reason stated below. I'm also assuming that no one thinks I'm flat-out lying, inventing imaginary sources that I hope no one is ever going to look up.)

I find it puzzling that once an author himself becomes notable enough--say by making it into the Colby World Authors reference work, or by publishing a major highly praised novel like Women and Men--his other novels have to be individually justified. Tell me now, because my intention is to work through all his novels. I agree that the Ship Rock and Preparations for Search chapbooks deserve nothing more than redirects to Women and Men. Indeed, demoting the P4S description as a novel was one of my first edits. I mean, how many reviews did Don DeLillo's first novel get? Nobody knew he was DON DELILLO at the time.

For those unfamiliar with World Authors, each volume covers a five year period, and each author gets several small print large size pages. Half of the article is typically a quoted autobiographical summary, the other half is a condensed summary of his fiction. McElroy appeared in the 1975-1980 volume (before Women and Men was written). I had added this citation to the author's page.

Choor monster (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your point - "I find it puzzling that once an author himself becomes notable enough--say by making it into the Colby World Authors reference work, or by publishing a major highly praised novel like Women and Men--his other novels have to be individually justified." - unfortunately, that's exactly right. Each subject must be verifiably notable with significant coverage of its own. If it is not sufficiently notable on its own then the details can be included in the article for the author himself. Where a novel has received its own significant coverage, then an article for that novel might be justified. Have a read of WP:N and, specifically, WP:NBOOK. The author does not necessarily inherit notability from his books (his products), nor his books from him. There are exceptions for authors who have received "de-facto coverage" (my words) because of the significance of their work. But that's not really what we're talking about here - he is notable (I don't think that is in question) and we are now dealing with whether some of his individual books are individually notable. Not that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a good argument, but there are plenty of authors who have articles who have written a number of books, only one or two of which have been considered individually notable.

Like I said, I find it puzzling. To me, if a book article can't grow beyond a stub, not reach even an inferior article consisting of lists, is a questionable article. Even one person having that much of an interest counts for something. (I am, of course, excluding self-interested promotion.) My interest is strictly personal--I've been reading him for 30 years--heck, I have no idea even where the accent is in his last name. So, yes, I take it for granted that everyone has at least heard of him as the most famous novelist that no one has ever heard of.Choor monster (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fair enough. Like I suggested, I think there is enough to justify this one - just have to be careful creating articles for his other less-well-known work. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Extended content

For the record, the standard burden of proof applies to all editing and Cindy was well within her rights to remove (or suggest the removal of) un-sourced or insufficiently sourced material. Your response (on your own talk page, not hers) was not particularly "good faith". I understand other things were in play and it was probably a general lack of civility all around (from myself included). Having a discussion about it (like this) is far more productive. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The actual removal was over-the-top unacceptable. It was shoot-first-aim-later, and we've all seen how well that played in the news last week. The Wiki consensus is to tag the article, and not take one-way action. This allows for the article itself to be improved to meet the burden of proof, rather than having this all take place in some irrelevant place. Cindy's suggestion to first develop articles in private is quite reasonable for things which are going to take quite some time to type in sufficient proof. But to delete/hide/erase as the first reaction? No way.

Yes, this is productive. Had Cindy tagged the article I can't imagine having a reaction other than "whatever".Choor monster (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Choor monster (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, also fair enough, and you're entitled to your opinion. Cindy took action she thought was in line with her responsibilities to the burden of proof (action not different to that we see every day). The material was unsourced and came with a note to suggest that wouldn't be improved while you were away. To be frank, I likely would have done the same thing. Anyway, sources are being added and this AfD is being resolved. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about my original article was close to WP:SPEEDY, except for A7 and A9, which do demand upfront evidence of notability for various things other than books. (You can skip the joke that "postmodernism" is "patent nonsense". Whether it is or isn't, this article isn't "postmodern".) Which means that lack of notability for things other than those A7, A9 topics can be fixed in slow motion. As such, the only proper action is AfD call. And there was no such "note" accompanying the article: after I wasted an hour on Sunday just trying to find out what happened (guess what: the "how to get to the redirect page itself" instructions did not work, but something else did), I reverted the vandalism--yes, it was vandalism, since it was not in accord with WP:SPEEDY--I then left a note saying I was going to be back. Had Cindy posted an AfD, I would have known what her actual issue was, instead of having to dig it out of the hidden history edit summary. And that wasted hour would have been filled with links to reviews and academic articles. Instead, my time limit arrived, I had to go, and so I left a note saying I wasn't going to be back until a few days later.Choor monster (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying below in "fisking" style to a long paragraph, since it's getting complicated and confusing. The words immediately below are Stalwart111, the one more indentation is Choor monster.

I don't think WP:SPEEDY deletion was proposed at any point so I don't think that is at all relevant.

Of course it wasn't proposed. You don't propose speedy deletions. You just do them, without discussion or vote. Which is exactly what Cindy did, deleting my content and replacing it with a redirect. As I have pointed out here, books without notability information are NOT on the list.

What? Speedy deletion is proposed by placing one of the speedy deletion templates on an article. This allows the speedy deletion to be contested. This was not done in this case (either proposal or content). Cindy might have acted "quickly" (as is expected of editors) but I cannot see where she has 'prodded' the article for speedy deletion. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're correct. I was thinking of administrators--and I thought Cindy was one already with here impressive wikiresume. They are allowed, make that, expected, to act unilaterally and remove patent nonsense, copyright violations, and the like. Peons can make a request.

Exactly. And without sources to verify the content you added, how can anyone verify that what you added is anything other than patent nonsense? That's the whole point of WP:V and WP:BURDEN - to source material before it is added, not after (the chronology is very clear). By your argument, I could just have easily added an "article" which claimed McElroy's book is about circus animals who stumble upon the ruins of an ancient civilisation while searching for bananas. But don't worry, I know it's the truth and people should just assume the book is my source. The argument is totally contrary to the basic principles of WP. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article had no references, no categories, did not attempt to establish notability and contained one single link.

Absolutely correct. Which means the article was perfect for an AfD vote. The point is that maybe the topic is notable, maybe not, a week is given to establish notability in the article itself (and not, say, on somebody's talk page). As to why this is WP policy for books and not certain other things--well, that doesn't concern this discussion.

It was turned into a redirect, with an explanation, which you reverted without an explanation or any attempt to address the issues raised.

I put my explanation in the place Cindy put her weasel words non-explanation: my talk page. Nothing explicit, but more than enough to let anyone know that given a week--as per AfD rules--it wasn't going to be difficult. And indeed, when I came back, people who apparently were unfamiliar with McElroy found links and other references. You know, part of the fun and power of wiki crowdsourcing.

You then posted a comment on your own talk page saying you would not be able to add anything to the article and that it should just be left alone until your return.

I said I was going to be away for two days. No more, no less. I said the redirect was unacceptable, but other than that, I gave no "orders".

The reality is that this article, and your other one, would have been better developed in your own user-space until you had sufficient time to develop them to the point of inclusion - this is the course of action suggested under every edit window when you edit.

There is no such suggestion anywhere on any page I edit, short of people like you and Cindy manually typing the suggestion in.

Below every edit window: Please note: When you click Save page, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone. If you wish to run a test, please edit the Sandbox instead.. It's the first of three notes along with one about verifiability and another about copyright infringement. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandbox? You're joking, right? The Sandbox is for trying to figure out some WP display trick, not storage of yet-to-be-articles. And you know this. At this point, I don't think you're even trying to maintain credibility. Since I wasn't trying to run a test, why would I use the Sandbox? I was trying to start an article, no more, no less. Cindy made a different suggestion, one I may take into consideration, but not one found on every edit page. For example, I've made scans of my other McElroy first editions covers (that aren't on amazon.com), and based on feedback regarding the AH cover I got today, I'll prepare them according to recommended WP policy, and not post them until the appropriate article exists.Choor monster (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you're going with this. The Sandbox is the most basic form of userfication and is regularly used to develop draft content (length is irrelevant). The sandbox itself also includes links for creating your own sandbox and links to the "Welcome" page which gives instructions on how to use more complicated userfication options. I would have thought the inference was obvious - if your material is not ready for Wikipedia, try developing it somewhere else until it is. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, though I'm all for adhering to the principles of WP:BITE, the article was created by an WP:SPA with two days editing experience. Though there should be an assumption of good faith, unfortunately, it is common for new editors to simply add their own opinions or ideas to WP without consideration of any guidelines, suggestions, requirements or manuals of style. Should that all have been explained on your talk page? Sure, maybe, and I'm sorry you didn't get a pleasant welcome.

This is all entirely irrelevant. You are defending Cindy's speedy deletion, and pointing out that the article was horribly inferior doesn't change the fact that it was not suitable for speedy deletion.

There was no speedy deletion. Please see above. As for the removal of content, again, please see WP:V - "Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed". That's not particularly ambiguous. Un-sourced material may be removed. The material was un-sourced and it was removed. I will happily defend that. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not what Cindy did, and it is what you are defending. I challenge you to carry out your words. Start going through the thousands of plot summaries out there on WP, with no source given, and blanking them. And defend your actions to the death. Please, no excuses. Plot summaries are sourced: the book itself.

There is a reason there are all sorts of citation-needed tags out there. The shoot-first-aim-later to unsourced material removal is applied for WP:BLP. For everything else we're supposed to work together towards a consensus. As is, there is lots of material that no one insists on citations for. The first sentence of this article, for example: "Ancient History: A Paraphase is Joseph McElroy's third novel, published in 1971." I'm expected to footnote this, citing "McElroy, Joseph, Ancient History: A Paraphase (1971), thirdness claim in last sentence of jacket cover back flap"? No one does this, no one insists on it, since otherwise there would not be any time to actually write articles about books. Really, read WP:WHYCITE.

Consider the Joseph Leftwich article. From the article's creation, almost 8 years ago, it had the wrong year of his death, until the other day when I discovered he was McElroy's father-in-law, and in browsing around, came across Leftwich's obituary somewhere, and on-line version of a reliable print source. I'm sure the original article creator had a source (I in fact recognize his name from my past WP experience)--it may have even been a print source listing his years inside a book--but we'll probably never know. I certainly gave references and a link to the correct information. And no, I was not driven to do so by any discussion here. It's just plain common sense. Just like it's plain common sense that plot summaries are sourced by the book itself.

Again, not really sure what you are suggesting. You said it was speedy deleted when it was clearly not. Removing content which is not properly sourced is entirely appropriate. It wasn't just the "plot summary" that was not reliably sourced - the article had no sources at all. Again, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". This is all a bit silly really. You are arguing with the person who showed up at both AfD's and found the sources required to help justify keeping both - thus helping you to meet your burden of proof. You added un-sourced material to Wikipedia, it was removed and you reacted badly. You are flogging a dead horse and I can't really see why. Time to move on and do some constructive editing - this time with sources. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But paying no heed to guidelines and then claiming you "reverted vandalism" in line with guidelines is a bit cute. You can't honestly expect people to believe you read WP:VAN in its entirety in time for your 15th edit before having read basics like WP:V which is linked from every edit window. I don't think you were "reverting vandalism" (your reversion made no mention of vandalism, nor did you use the vandalism tool) - you were restoring your content because you didn't like that it had been removed and I don't think you understood (at that stage) why it had been removed.

I understood why it had been removed: Cindy put nnbook in her edit summary, the one hidden by the redirect. It is correct that I did not like it, but since I knew the truth--McElroy's books are notable--I knew that Cindy was acting out of an arrogant ignorance, of the "I-haven't-heard-of-this-guy-or-any-of-his-books-and-his-page-is-pretty-shabby" counts as proof of non-notability--I simply reverted it and left my brief note mentioning, don't worry, the books are notable on two counts, but since the timing was such I wasn't going to be able to do anything whatsoever on my end of the burden for two days, I left a note saying so.

Just because you couldn't find something doesn't mean it was "hidden" on purpose. The "burden" is all "your end" as the original editor. Please have a look at the essay, Verifiability, not truth. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the burden is on my side. I've never said or implied otherwise. I've not complained about that one bit. Meanwhile, Cindy, however, went too far. I'm not the only one who thinks so. Her second speedy deletion of the entire content was reverted by an uninvolved third party who accused Cindy of wikifascism in the edit summary. Then she did the proper WP thing, and put in the AfD..

"Hasty removal", perhaps, but continuing to use the term "speedy deletion" when not referring to "speedy deletion" (which clearly was not used) is misleading and mischievous. If you understand WP:BURDEN then you understand why Cindy did what she did. If you still don't understand why your material was removed then you have missed the point of WP:V and WP:BURDEN entirely. You are, of course, entitled to your view that she responded with haste. But even that uninvolved editor agrees her actions were "in accordance with the letter of WP guidelines", though "knee-jerk". Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have since discovered WP:VAN and "I was reverting vandalism" looks like a good justification for acting the way you did. It is not. Removing un-sourced content is not "vandalism". In future, I would strongly suggest you use the sandbox or userfication options available to you if your article is not yet ready for the main article space. It would allow you to avoid going through all of this again. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I had a year's anonymous experience in the early days of WP. I created several dozen articles on a range of topics. Back in those days the rules were more fluid. And yes, we had vandalism back then. I made no mention of it at first since it didn't occur to me, and if it did, I believed, as I stated it above, Cindy was ignorant, not malicious. But since you have been making such a point about how you and others are so experienced and know all these WP rules (unlike me at the time), well, you've convinced me that violating them by erasing and burying the erasures under a redirect when the topic is clearly not subject to speedy deletion is intentional, malicious, and disruptive. Really, you can't have it both ways.

For the record, it is clear that Cindy quickly changed her mind, realized the articles were not suitable for speedy deletion, and then did the appropriate AfD calls. Women and Men itself is so well-known that the AfD ended almost immediately, while Ancient History is dragging on.Choor monster (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is an entirely appropriate response to an SPA that reverts removal of un-sourced material. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying "un-sourced material". I do not think you know what that means. Most of my initial article was sourced: the book itself. You are confusing "sourced" with "footnoted".

Un-sourced; without sources. By extension it was also, obviously, not footnoted either. Your material had no sources. Your argument that WP:V shouldn't apply because you understood the book well is inaccurate, at best. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there was no speedy deletion involved. You flat-out ignored the instructions and guidelines provided as you were making each one of those edits then reacted badly when another editor enforced the rules. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Cindy did not enforce the rules. She took a unilateral non-policy article deletion (in the form of a redirect that hid the original material)

WP:V - "Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed". It was removed. That's an obvious enforcement of the rules as far as I'm concerned. Again, you can argue that it was "hasty" or "knee-jerk" - that's fine. But it was absolutely in accordance with policy, whether you like the policies or not. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, removing poor editing is not vandalism or a "violation" of the "rules". It is what is expected of all editors. Your basic argument boils down to, "the rules shouldn't apply to me because what I am (was) writing is the truth!", which is a patent fallacy. You injected your own opinion into an encyclopaedia without the required references and it was removed. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not inject my own opinion. Most of what I wrote was sourced, in the completely obvious location: the book itself. Really, is there a single reader of the original article who would suspect that I made up the fact that the narrator is named Cy, short for Cyrus, because I didn't put in a footnote to the book? But a footnote reassures said reader that he could, if he wanted to, track down my source of information, whereas before he was helpless?

I injected facts' into WP: Ancient Historys narrator is named Cy, for example. I believe we don't find out until page 183, when Cy recounts his fateful conversation with Doug. That it's short for Cyrus, and not Cyril (both mentioned in the book), is something we find out later. Do I need to cite the page were Dom is called a "New York Jewish liberal", lest people think I made that up too?

What's required is verifiable material. That is what I have been following. As it says on WP:V, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." It does not say it must be verified/cited/footnoted before you can add it. I've stuck to the truth, yes, but more essentially, I've stuck to verifiable truth.

Sorry, but you didn't verify anything with reliable sources. "Knowing" the "truth" in your own mind and arguing that people should assume your interpretation is accurate is pure WP:OR. The lines before the one you quoted - " Verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors". If it doesn't have reliable sources, it's not verifiable. As such, your opinion of the book (and, again, not just the plot summary - nothing had sources), regardless of accuracy, is WP:OR if it can not be verified. If you want to critique, review or summarise books in your own words rather than by summarising previously published information then Wikipedia is not the right place for it.

I think you understand you are way, way, way off base with this one. I think you know what you were supposed to have done in the first place and you're flogging this dead horse for the sake of pride, or something. You made a mistake; frankly a fairly inconsequential one in the scheme of things. Learn from it. Move on. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have now found some references and it will most likely stay. You should have done that to begin with, but at least now you know for next time. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What has been added is evidence of notability. I did not "find" them: I knew all along the book reviews existed because they're cited on the jacket covers of his novels. I knew academic writing on McElroy and his novels existed because I've read them too over the years. I had read Plus in the early 80s, and Lookout Cartridge in the mid-80s, but I did not know McElroy was taken seriously until I read Steven Moore's ecstatic review of Women and Men, mentioned below, and knew I had to read everything by McElroy at that point. And since this was in the days before on-line bookstores, wikipedia, and so on, it was a bit slow getting caught up to speed. The special Joseph McElroy issue of The Review of Contemporary Fiction came out in 1990, and I was off and running.

Like I said, I know for a fact that McElroy and his novels are notable, and I've known this because of the sources that have been telling me so for decades now. The fact that I don't type in these sources right away does not mean they do not exist and that the material is non-notable and non-verifiable. It simply means notability and verifiability are a priori questionable, which means the WP process of discussion and consensus forming are to take place, as opposed to high-handed one-way actions like speedy deletion.

In short, your claim that the plot summary was WP:OR is patent nonsense.Choor monster (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry, but that's not accurate. And I didn't limit my comments to the plot summary - the original "article" did not have one single source, was your own interpretation of the book (regardless of the accuracy of your interpretation) and was WP:OR in its purest form - original thought backed up by personal experience. "verifiable before you can add it" and "material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed". It wasn't verified by reliable sources and it was removed. Not "later", not "when I get around to it". Before. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient History will stay because its notable. Let's not bite the newbies when they get upset, there is oh so much for them to legitimately get upset at.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I find Stalwart's complaint about my "long tracts of OR" completely off-base. (Long??? I've just started with a stub so far.) Summarizing a book is not OR. My statements about the book's content can all be verified in the obvious location. What were you expecting? The Cliff's notes?

As I mentioned on the talk page (with an explicit example), I am shying away from sharing my opinions about what's going on in the book. I am also aware that McElroy is a difficult writer, and I can make mistakes, and not notice an ambiguity, say. But such fine detail isn't what Stalwart was complaining about.

Choor monster (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing a book is original research (see WP:OR) if your opinions (factually accurate or not) are not verified by reliable sources. If the statements can be verified (and I am more than happy to accept that they can) then add references for each of the opinions - your own opinion (regardless of how well you personally understood the book) is not a reliable source. So someone else has to have said it before we can include it. If you had had your critique of the book published by the New York Times then we mere mortals (WP editors) would be citing your interpretation as a reliable source. Sucks sometimes but they are the rules the WP community sticks to. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a bizarre misreading of WP:OR. Plot summaries do have a reliable source: the book itself. The problem comes with difficult books that are not presented in easy-read narratives, with deliberate, understated goings-on. An important subplot is resolved by the author referring to something happening to the man with the Irish thornproof tweed, and the alert reader is supposed to smile, remembering the previous mention of his tweed 400 pages earlier. In this case, William Gaddis The Recognitions has a guidebook, but I find it bizarre that something like that needs to be third-party referenced. On the other hand, I recall reaching the ending of Jonathan Franzen The Twenty-Seventh City thinking one major character had been murdered, but then I learned according to Wikipedia, it was suicide. Really? Well, actually, that makes more sense physically in the book, but it makes very little sense descriptively, at least to me. And there is no question with things like Agatha Christie The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, where the book says in plainest English that X was the killer, both in the book and in her spoiler-laden autobiography. There is at least one book out there claiming X was taking the fall for Y, and the contents of the book is a very close reading that supposedly proves Y is the killer. If that book or the like did not exist, Wikipedia cannot mention the alternate theory.

All I mean is that I feel comfortable with writing up the above Gaddis example as "objective" from the text itself, I might write up something like the Franzen example thinking I'm being "objective" but instantly upon being told of the other reading concede my blind spot, and I will always think of the Christie example alternative killer theory, no matter how well argued, is pure OR. Postmodern writing specializes in playing up the reader-involvement-deduction angle, but that doesn't mean there's no core that can be presented without references beyond the text itself.

For example, I assume in Ancient History itself, I could describe Dom as "Maileresque" without references, but I acknowledge that it's a grey area, which is why I waited until I looked up a reference. But the fact that Dom fell out of a ninth story window and lived is objective fact within the book, and I don't need to bother finding some critic or reviewer who mentions it.Choor monster (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A strict reading perhaps but not a misreading - "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves." The book can be added as a Primary Source (with care) but it wasn't to begin with and still isn't. 5 out of the 7 paragraphs don't have sources - not a deal killer but it should be improved. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I find this completely nuts. Every paragraph of the plot summary or character description requires a footnote? Seriously, Every Possible Reader KNOWS knows the source: the book itself. What's prohibited as unsourced OR are things like the alternative theory of who killed Roger Ackroyd--a very clever reading between the lines that takes a book to spell out. In this article, the referenced Tabbi article interprets Ancient History as McElroy slaying Mailer the father-figure to make room for his own novelistic style. THAT is the sort of stuff that must be referenced. (Frankly, I find the Tabbi article more confusing than McElroy himself.) Look at Underworld. One footnote, for an inference that someone grew up near a certain location. Look at Gravity's Rainbow. Three footnotes in the very long plot summary. One to someone who counted 400 characters. One to an interpretative statement about what drives the plots and subplots. And one to GR itself, although why that of the dozens of plot points needs a footnote escapes me.

I'm not interested in wikilawyering this, since whether or not I was guilty of WP:OR is irrelevant to whether AH is notable enough. I'd say that the guidelines need to be rewritten. I mean, go ahead, tag the article as saying it's unclear where I found out Dom was Jewish from.Choor monster (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That there are other articles in worse shape is irrelevant. WP:V (would strongly suggest you have a read) is very clear (on line 2) - "[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" (original emphasis). You can disagree with the success of WP:V, you can propose changes to it and can rally against it. But I would venture to suggest you'll have a tough time building consensus against it. I would also venture to suggest you'd have a far easier time of things by working on bringing your articles up to scratch, given they obviously can be, rather than trying to "fight the system" because of your initial misunderstanding. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I am not mentioning the other articles to suggest they are in "worse" shape. I believe that they are in fine shape, and it is articles like these that I have been looking at for my role model. (Well, Underworld needs more plot summary.) For your information, nothing you quote seems to be a problem: McElroy's Ancient History is previously published information. Everything I state about the plot and the characters in the book (as others have stated in the other book articles I mentioned) comes from the book itself, unless stated otherwise (the Norman Mailer comparison). Under no circumstance will I include personal speculation, like what Cy does after the novel's end, no matter how harmless, logical, seemingly "necessary" to the book's storyline it appears, unless I come across a third-party (or McElroy himself in some interview) who makes the same speculation. And I state this aware of the challenge that since in postmodern fiction, ambiguity often trumps clarity, this is not as easy as traditional fiction. Choor monster (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to whether I will fight the system, I will at some point raise the issue. It seems like an unintended side effect of an obviously important policy, and that has not been addressed since nobody has wikilawyered a plot summary before. I really find the idea that I have to keep reminding readers that my plot summary is based on the book completely nuts.Choor monster (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then cite it or fight it. Easy as. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will mostly continue writing good informative articles on Joseph McElroy's novels. It's an embarrassing hole.Choor monster (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you should - your continued contributions are welcome. But please understand that this is an encyclopaedia - this is not a place for publishing original ideas or interpretations. Though new editors sometimes baulk at the idea when they finally realise, being an editor on WP is basically a matter of regurgitating what reliable sources have collectively said about something. It can sometimes be frustrating when you "know" something about a subject but can't add it to WP because someone else hasn't said it first. By all means continue to add material, but please also be diligent about adding sources to back it up.

To allow everyone to move on and get on with editing, I've collapsed the vast majority of our discussion above. I have responded to some points and my aim is not to censor / limit any further responses or arbitrarily end the discussion - please feel free to respond as you see fit; I will see your responses (as will others - it is not hidden). But I will say I think it is obvious that mistakes were made to begin with, those have been resolved, this AfD is unlikely to succeed (given there is not a single delete vote) and everyone should now focus on building the article in question. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: I added the two ny times cites, they are both substantive articles -- clearly treating McElroy as an important author and the book as an important book. (E.g., from Donadio article: "McElroy's third novel compels respect"). Choor asks: "I find it puzzling that once an author himself becomes notable enough--say by making it into the Colby World Authors reference work, or by publishing a major highly praised novel like Women and Men--his other novels have to be individually justified." Yeah, I don't think that's necessarily true. As an encyclopedia, we want our coverage to be logical and organized. If an author has 7 novels and 5 are clearly notable, I guarantee you that articles on the remaining 2 will withstand attempts at deletion. Choor, it is best if you create articles that have citations in them already to stave off deletion nominations. On Cindy's side, I am disturbed that after her prior AfD of Women and Men crashed and burned, she'd just nominate another of Choor's creations. AfD is not supposed to be a game.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would remind you to assume good faith. Your assumption here is not accurate in reflecting the facts. Another note, the AFD did not "crash and burn", but served as intended to discuss the merits of the article in order to establish notability. This was successfully done in accordance with the established process. Certainly not a game. Time to check yourself my friend. Cindy(talk to me) 20:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check myself?! OHNOYOUDIDNT!. You had to withdraw the AfD; I do credit you for doing that instead of digging in your heels as unfortunately happens too often.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record - both were nominated at the same time (I responded to both at almost exactly the same time). It's not accurate to say one failed and the other was subsequently nominated as some form of retaliation. Neither article established (or made any attempt to establish) notability and both were nominated. For one there was a number of reliable sources and once those were highlighted the nomination was withdrawn, as is appropriate. That wasn't necessarily the case with this nomination. The original author contends that sources exist and having had a look myself, I have also found some (though not nearly as many as for Women and Men, I might add). If this AfD results in attention being drawn the article and a number of editors contributing to its betterment, I can only think that is a good thing. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Moore, extremely well known literary critic--he has his own Wikipedia article!--specializing in postmodern fiction, starts off his review of Women and Men with the sentence "Joseph McElroy published five remarkable novels between 1966 and 1977". That means all of McElroy's novels in the time span mentioned. I consider any strong positive mere mention by Moore as pretty much a definitive "this book is notable"--this being his area of expertise.

Down the road, I'm thinking of a Michael Brodsky page, along with some of his novels (Xman, Dyad, ***, We Can Report Them). I believe his novels outdo every other postmodernist in extreme difficulty, so I'll consider your suggestions seriously.

Choor monster (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Choor, I am not really familiar with Michael Brodsky (I'm focused lately on popular U.S. fiction of ~1860-1910, scrumptious lowbrow fare like 1887 sensation, Mr. Barnes of New York), but a quick search tells me Brodsky is notable enough to have his own article. I'd start by creating a good article just on him, where you include a section about his works and their reception. Then, if your time permits, its easier to create separate articles for any novels you think merit expanded treatment.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^^This^^ is funny ("scrumptious lowbrow fare") More light-heartedness please! Unfortunately, Choor monster, a mere mention by anyone is unlikely to be considered "significant coverage" of a subject to help with meeting WP:GNG. But this and other mentions, other coverage and reviews (in totality) would be considered significant enough. But this is exactly the sort of thing you should be looking for. As an aside, I'm with Milowent - an article on Michael Brodsky sounds like a good idea. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe we can all kill two birds with one stone here. Milowent could, for example, take an interest in the 1853 (British) novel Hypatia. The article has been a nothing stub for 4 months now--I note that in its history no one has called for references that it's individually notable. As you can guess by my comments, I'm happy with that. Meanwhile, Hypatia gets referred to in McElroy's Ancient History itself, as part of the narrator's classical history education. Part of the work of editing AH will simply to link to good stuff like this, except right now this one isn't so good.Choor monster (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And on a parallel note, Thomas Pynchon included the Delaware/Maryland/Pennsylvania tri-state area legend of the "ticking tombstone" in his Mason & Dixon. (One particular known tombstone according to locals, inscribed "R.C.") The first written version of this legend is due to Gath, who in his day was as popular as Mark Twain. It's the "Ticking Stone" story in his Tales of the Chesapeake, which was reprinted in 1968 so reasonably priced copies can be found online if you can't get it by ILL.Choor monster (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the initial change to a redirect, although in accordance with the letter of WP guidelines, was a knee-jerk reaction, so I reverted it. The article has now improved beyond all recognition and the subject is clearly notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2012

(UTC)

Summary of main disagreement: Choor monster/Stewart111

Regarding Cindy's original redirects: nothing she did fit in with WP:R criterion of a redirect. It violated WP:BLANK. It violated WP:PRESERVE. And no, plot summaries are not WP:OR--that is nowhere practiced on WP, and the practice did not begin with Cindy's edit--so the article did not meet WP:CANTFIX. Calling it an instance of WP:SPEEDY is 99% accurate, so I'm sticking to that.

As a further example, check out Great Expectations. The plot summary has several footnotes. They are there for one reason only: to provide a source for the timeline of the novel's action. Nowhere did Dickens tie the plot to dates or at least datable events, so scholarly readers over the years have played detective and published their conclusions. Doing so on WP for the first time in any novel would be OR.

As an example of something I'm not going to do: I am very tempted to summarize Lookout Cartridge, McElroy's postmodern techno-thriller, with the statement that the key to solving the mystery is realizing "the medium is the message". I mean, wow, McElroy channelled McLuhan and blasted one of the best metafiction home runs ever, with a whodunit resolution as clever, totally unexpected, but perfectly logical in the best Agatha Christie tradition. Well, it may be possible to phrase this in a way without violating WP:OR, but at the moment, nothing comes to mind. On the other hand, the relation of McElroy's interminable, labyrinthine, and borderline comprehensible sentences to the plot of Lookout Cartridge has been discussed in the secondary literature--including one interview--so that can go in. (Even this might be a little tricky: McElroy actually said they were borderline "incomprehensible". Phrasing it backwards like that was, arguably, the only humorous thing he's ever written.)

Similarly, Hind's Kidnap is a treasure hunt of a plot, disguised as a mystery. This seems harmless as a factual observation--Hind is sent from point to point, each time waiting for the next clue to materialize, and while waiting, rambles on interminably--but there's no need to debate the matter: McElroy uses the exact phrase "treasure hunt" repeatedly in the novel. Women and Men turns out to be, amongst other things, the world's ultimate shaggy dog story ever, with most of the plots and subplots resolved in one gigantic punchline. Ah, those sentences and paragraphs that just kept going on forever for 1192 pages, why, McElroy was just funning with me in the best dog tradition. I don't see how to put this in the article. And that ending...it essentially says, "and if you thought that was funny, let me start my next joke". Clearly this is a personal interpretation. And yes, I know I can't sneak this into the talk pages, not even my own user page, WP is not a blog.

Meanwhile, I will continue to engage in plot summaries. And I do so knowing that this is both unnatural for a McElroy novel, and that he is often unclear, and I'm not allowed to pass off personal best guesses as to what is going on. That would be OR.

Nowhere have I claimed or implied that my knowledge of truth trumps any WP criteria. I have simply stated that 30 years of reading McElroy and some of the secondary literature means I know for a hard-cold fact that McElroy's novels are individually notable. That information will go in first next time, but frankly, I think it's a little ridiculous that I'm mostly concerned with another Cindy-level tactical nuclear response than a routine AfD tag.

Anyway, this AfD seems to be ready to be declared dead, and you and I have really been misbehaving with all this metadiscussion. Whether I'll pursue the policy pages or not is something I'll consider later.Choor monster (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: No deletion votes aside from nominator. Please do not relist; article has improved during AfD.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:51, 27 September 2012 (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.