Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attentatet i Pålsjö skog

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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attentatet i Pålsjö skog

Attentatet i Pålsjö skog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass any of the 5 requirements for a notable book and as far as I can tell, there is no English version either. Law Lord (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources. It was quite controversial when published, but finding on-line sources after this many years is tricky. // Liftarn (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Swedish newspapers do not generally appear to have openly searchable content on the web going back to 1996, but according to an article database (Artikelsök), the book was reviewed in the following Swedish papers: Gefle Dagblad 1997-02-26, Smålandsposten 1997-01-21, Nerikes Allehanda 1997-01-17, Svenska Dagbladet 1997-01-13, Aftonbladet 1996-12-04, Hallandsposten 1996-11-22, Sundsvalls Tidning 1996-11-19, Nya Wermlands-Tidningen 1996-10-30, Helsingborgs Dagblad 1996-10-28, Kvällsposten 1996-10-28, and Norrköpings Tidningar Östergötlands Dagblad 1996-10-28. Svenska Dagbladet also published an interview with author Hans Alfredson on 1996-11-17, on the occasion of the publication of the book. --Hegvald (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing that the book exists nor that is is known in Sweden. It even sounds like an interesting book. As it is, however, it does not fulfil the notability requirements (see the link above), and the sources you are both providing do not change that. Cheers Law Lord (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the very first of the listed criteria:
"The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." [My emphasis]
Could you explain how that isn't fulfilled by these reviews (+ one other article)? --Hegvald (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me which of those reviews use a source other than the book itself? As far as I can tell, none of them do. They are all based 100% on the book. --Law Lord (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Book reviews are usually not "based on" a book, but discuss the book informed by the reviewer's previous knowledge of its subject area, literary tradition or genre. But how exactly is this question relevant in this context? --Hegvald (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant because your argument is that the book is notable because it is mentioned in several reviews. However, as the policy clearly states: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself , ..." Therefore, your claim of notability for the book remains to be proven. --Law Lord (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally relevant. Book reviews in independent press is exactly what is needed to establish notability for a book. And Hegvald has stated that these are in fact book reviews in Swedish papers. One cannot possibly review a book without basing that review on the book itself. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making the rules, simply trying to make sure they are followed. I think the policy is excellent. Nobody here is claiming that the book reviews must not be based on the book. Rather, they are based on nothing but the book and therefore the "other sources" requirement has not been met. Apart from that, having reviewed the data submitted by Hegvald, it is quite clear the book may be notable in Sweden. However, this is the enWiki, and there is really nothing notable about it from an English speaking point of view. Adding to the fact that English speakers will not be able to even read the book, which is in Swedish. --Law Lord (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your intepretation of these rules then are quite different from mine. Book reviews establish notability for a book because they represent coverage about the subject. The review is independent of the subject because the person writing the review is not affiliated with the book, and for newspapers and magazines, there is editorial oversight into the selection of material to publish which establishes the notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can't read Swedish and the google translator doesn't do a good enough job to get a good undertstanding of teh sourcing, but it does appear to have some notability, and at the very least, it should be a merge to Hans Alfredson. I see no good reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the policy, which is the basis for your claim that something, which is notable in Sweden, is also "notable enough elsewhere." That is quite a claim, actually. --Law Lord (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's covered in multiple reliable sources. There's no stipulation that the sources must be in English although it is preferred. Undeer what policy would you be excluding this? -- Whpq (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, whether your post was a question for me? Anyway, you should read Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Lots_of_sources and learn. As for notability: something being notable in Sweden (or in Belarus or elsewhere) need not mean that it is notable on enWiki. --Law Lord (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, being covered in multiple reliable sources in any language is good enough for general notability, by definition. The link to the (somewhat dubious) essay only says that the sources have to be reliable and independent as well as being multiple. This book, independently reviewed by major newspapers, meets those criteria even if the newspapers didn't publish in English. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please list policy (good luck finding it) in support of your claim. Also, we cannot rename the article to "The Assassination in Pålsjö Wood" since no such book exists. --Law Lord (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The general notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The book notability guideline: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." Are you claiming that the Swedish newspaper book reviews are not independent, not reliable, or don't serve a general audience? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not ask questions, which have already been answered (by me!). The answer is here. Therefore, it is not notable. Besides, it seems obvious that you have a specific inclusionist agenda, as you have stated on your user page. That being the case, perhaps you should stay out of deletion debates, since you are obviously biased? --Law Lord (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The book has been the subject of a number of published reviews and therefore satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (books), point 1. Also, to address some of the nominator's statements:
    1. There is no geographic restriction on notability. If the book is notable in Sweden, it is notable everywhere.
    2. A book review is independent if it appears in a source which is independent of the author, his publisher, etc. There is no requirement that the book review itself not use the book as a source. If a book review did not discuss the book, it would be a very poor review. Spacepotato (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Nobody here is claiming that the book reviews must not be based on the book. Rather, they are based on nothing but the book and therefore the "other sources" requirement has not been met." Your quote "appears in a source" is not a quote but something you have made up. The policy actually says that there must be works (like reviews) "whose sources are independent of the book itself". If the policy was the way you claim (must appear in something other than the book), then please tell me which kinds of works about a book appears in the book itself? That makes no sense at all. --Law Lord (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Appears in a source" means published, as in published by a source independent of the book itself. It's that simple. -- Whpq (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but "appears in a source" is not what the policy says. Please do not make fake quotes here! It does not matter what "appears in a source" means, because the policy requirement is something altogether different. --Law Lord (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re your comment previous to this one, the criterion is that the source a review appears in must be independent of the book (meaning: independent of the book's publisher, author, etc.) The criterion is not whether or not the review appears in the book itself. Indeed Wikipedia:Notability (books) makes this obvious by adding: "The immediately preceding criterion 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." Spacepotato (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is becoming very tiresome indeed. I wonder whether people do not understand or are just ignoring the obvious because understanding means accepting that the book does not meet the notability requirements? The requirement in policy is quite clear:

    "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience."

Please read that sentence, and understand the following:
  1. "published works" is the review itself
  2. "whose sources" are the sources, which the review is based on.
The reviews, which have been put forward in this discussion are all based solely on the book itself. The book itself is not "independent of the book itself". An independent source would be e.g. a book by a competitive author, which is then compared with the book in question. Nobody has been able to point out a single review which has been based on a source other than the book itself. Therefore, the requirement is not met. --Law Lord (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, your mistake is easier to see now. Your point 2 is a misapprehension as the words "whose sources" mean: the sources, which the review appears in. This should be obvious from comparing Wikipedia:Notability (books) with the general notability guideline, WP:N:
Clearly, this criterion of independence does not require a book review to discuss a competing book, or to base its content on what you have called an "independent source". Also, you may wish to read footnote 4 in Wikipedia:Notability (books):
It is clear here that independence is a property of the venue and author of the review and not of its content. Spacepotato (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your mistake is quite clear now. You are intent on backing a false interpretation of a policy, which is in fact very clear and easy to understand. Since you are obviously content with maintaining this grievous policy violation, there is little more I can do. My interpretation of the policy wording is the only viable one, and nothing you have written indicates otherwise. --Law Lord (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spacepotato, Hegvald, and I appear to be all under the same understanding of the policy. Furthermore, it is the interpretation that has generally been used by most other editors. I cannot understand how you can claim that these reviews are not independent sources. A review is independent of the book when the reviewer is not affiliated with the book. What you have put forward seems to require that a book review not actually be about the book which is clearly nonsensical so an explanation of your position is needed. -- Whpq (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever else comes of this, I went and made a minor change the syntax of WP:NBOOK, to avoid any ambiguity in what the modifier modified, hoping to avoid this misunderstanding in the future. If I have done wrong in doing so, I'd expect the pitchfork and torch brigade to show up sooner or later, and thus far they haven't. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously meets "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." Reviews are obviously independant sources and the nominator's interpretation that they are not is unique and incorrect. While English language sources are prefered, they are not required. Edward321 (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2009 (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.