Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Sent Me: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia


Article Images

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content deleted Content added

Line 12: Line 12:

:: @[[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]]: There's a review in [[The Atlanta Jewish Times]] on pg. 34 of this [https://issuu.com/atlantajewishtimes/docs/ajt_october_21_2016_web issue]. This would normally be enough, but there's an interview with the author directly above the review, so I don't think this would be independent enough to count towards NBOOK. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 00:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

:: @[[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]]: There's a review in [[The Atlanta Jewish Times]] on pg. 34 of this [https://issuu.com/atlantajewishtimes/docs/ajt_october_21_2016_web issue]. This would normally be enough, but there's an interview with the author directly above the review, so I don't think this would be independent enough to count towards NBOOK. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 00:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

:Per the above, a very '''weak keep'''. Without knowing more about that organization's processes, the independence may be up in the air, but they look like a reputable newspaper and strictly speaking I don't think interviewing the author is a ''sure'' sign that it's non independent, they could have simply sought it out. But yeah I won't die on this hill [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 14:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

:Per the above, a very '''weak keep'''. Without knowing more about that organization's processes, the independence may be up in the air, but they look like a reputable newspaper and strictly speaking I don't think interviewing the author is a ''sure'' sign that it's non independent, they could have simply sought it out. But yeah I won't die on this hill [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 14:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

<ul><li>'''Keep''' per the significant coverage in multiple independent [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]]. [[Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria]] says: <blockquote>A book is presumed notable if it [[WP:V|verifiably]] meets, through [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]], at least '''one''' of the following criteria:<ol><li>The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, [[flap copy]], or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.</ol></blockquote> <u>'''Sources'''</u><ol>

<li>{{cite news |last=Jacobs |first=Michael |date=2016-10-21 |title=Time for a Disclaimer |url=https://issuu.com/atlantajewishtimes/docs/ajt_october_21_2016_web |newspaper=[[The Atlanta Jewish Times]] |via=[[Issuu]] |volume=91 |number=41 |accessdate=2024-07-01 }}<p>I consider the review to be independent of the subject as it contains negative content. The review notes: "Selman's book is exhaustive and exhausting in its details on the struggle against the sticker, especially in the extensive use of court testimony. Even if he's right, however, Selman is hardly an objective source. His book is not, and does not pretend to be, a dispassionate history. As he says repeatedly, he wants to wake up Americans to the threat of theocracy, but '''he risks putting some readers to sleep by emphasizing advocacy over information.''' Still, Selman has created, if not a textbook, an invaluable resource for anyone who wants a reminder that science and religion can coexist, but not in the same classroom."</li>

<li>{{cite magazine |last=Branch |first=Glenn |date=September–October 2015 |title=A Textbook Case in Georgia Remembered |url=https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2015/09/22164104/p59.pdf |magazine=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |volume=39 |issue=5 |pages=59–60 |accessdate=2024-07-01 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20240701093150/https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2015/09/22164104/p59.pdf |archivedate=2024-07-01 }}<p>The review notes: "Selman also understates the role of ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'' in forcing the school board to settle. ... ''God Sent Me'' is self-published, and the lack of a firm editorial hand is intermittently detectable. Generally following a straight chronological narrative, Selman’s writing is serviceable and often engaging, although there are occasional patches of purple prose: for example at one point he writes, somewhat ridiculously, “The life I was living was in a comfortable but contaminated Petri dish where the leprosy of theocracy was threatening to break out and become epidemic” (17). Fans of Leo Rosten will be amused by Selman’s pervasive use of expressions from Yiddish, accompanied by helpful glosses, although “farblondjet” is oddly spelled as “fablunjet” (175). There is no index and no bibliography, and references appear variously in footnotes and in running text, which is mildly frustrating."</li>

</ol>There is sufficient coverage in [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]] to allow ''God Sent Me: A Textbook Case on Evolution vs. Creation'' to pass [[Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline]], which requires "significant coverage in [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that are [[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent]] of the subject".<p>[[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 09:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)</p></li></ul>

Revision as of 09:36, 1 July 2024

God Sent Me

God Sent Me (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)

A self-published autobiography about Selman v. Cobb County School District, with no substantial coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Skeptical Inquirer review is sigcov, so it's untrue that there's none, but if that's it then it would fail notability. It needs at least two. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: There's a review in The Atlanta Jewish Times on pg. 34 of this issue. This would normally be enough, but there's an interview with the author directly above the review, so I don't think this would be independent enough to count towards NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above, a very weak keep. Without knowing more about that organization's processes, the independence may be up in the air, but they look like a reputable newspaper and strictly speaking I don't think interviewing the author is a sure sign that it's non independent, they could have simply sought it out. But yeah I won't die on this hill PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Jacobs, Michael (2016-10-21). "Time for a Disclaimer". The Atlanta Jewish Times. Vol. 91, no. 41. Retrieved 2024-07-01 – via Issuu.

      I consider the review to be independent of the subject as it contains negative content. The review notes: "Selman's book is exhaustive and exhausting in its details on the struggle against the sticker, especially in the extensive use of court testimony. Even if he's right, however, Selman is hardly an objective source. His book is not, and does not pretend to be, a dispassionate history. As he says repeatedly, he wants to wake up Americans to the threat of theocracy, but he risks putting some readers to sleep by emphasizing advocacy over information. Still, Selman has created, if not a textbook, an invaluable resource for anyone who wants a reminder that science and religion can coexist, but not in the same classroom."

    2. Branch, Glenn (September–October 2015). "A Textbook Case in Georgia Remembered" (PDF). Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 39, no. 5. pp. 59–60. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

      The review notes: "Selman also understates the role of Kitzmiller v. Dover in forcing the school board to settle. ... God Sent Me is self-published, and the lack of a firm editorial hand is intermittently detectable. Generally following a straight chronological narrative, Selman’s writing is serviceable and often engaging, although there are occasional patches of purple prose: for example at one point he writes, somewhat ridiculously, “The life I was living was in a comfortable but contaminated Petri dish where the leprosy of theocracy was threatening to break out and become epidemic” (17). Fans of Leo Rosten will be amused by Selman’s pervasive use of expressions from Yiddish, accompanied by helpful glosses, although “farblondjet” is oddly spelled as “fablunjet” (175). There is no index and no bibliography, and references appear variously in footnotes and in running text, which is mildly frustrating."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow God Sent Me: A Textbook Case on Evolution vs. Creation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]