🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Book_of_the_Week
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book of the Week

Add links
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 no consensus‎. Pretty much per Liz, the arguments are all over the shop, and the discussion is bordering on personal attacks. I don't think the main participants in the debate are going to agree on this, so it's best to close the discussion for now, before it generates more heat than light. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Book of the Week

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Book of the Week (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)

Unsourced. WP:NOTTVGUIDE. There are news articles that mention books appearing on the show, but they are stubby program-guide type articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Book of the Week" could be a future dab, and "Book of the Week (BBC)" could be this article. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Common knowledge. It is in plain sight that "Book of the Week" is notable. Anyone can listen to BBC Radio 4 on the BBC Sounds between 9.45 and 10am any week day. Anyone in the world with an internet connection can do this. It has been broadcast weekdays for more than 20 years, it is almost as reliable as the Sun rising in the mornings (if you see what I mean). Anyway, the current expanded article shows that "Book of the Week" is notable and it does have reliable refs. The BBC is one of the most important sources for the Wiki. I did expand parts of article with AI assistance and I checked every source and edited the output to make it accurate. I wrote other parts manually. By itself, AI made an amazing article, but I had to reject most of it, because the sources needed a login or somehow not available to me. Using a "deep search" facility, AI found about a dozen refs. I used AI here under pressure from this deletion request. Thank you for removing some of the glossy AI language. I have made it a bid more readable too. It is worth having a look at all the "what links here"; there are many pages linking here, many books, authors, and narrators. Not just the links on the template. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have added BBC web pages to the article to support the data there. Unfortunately, those are not independent sources. (See WP:ORGIND and WP:INDEPENDENT). Therefore they do not support notability of the topic. Lamona (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have/had 2 non-bbc sources but unfortunately the Turpin one does not mention BBC or the reading of the book. I marked it as failing verification but it really should be deleted. Lamona (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You continue to repeat yourself. It is rather unusual that an editor as accomplished and longstanding as yourself is refusing to produce evidence and instead settling for personal claims of notability and significance. And you can defend your use of AI, but it produced a rather substandard article that is really no better than the stub that preceded it. Just because you can dredge up insignificant coverage does not mean expanding the article with said coverage actually improves it and elevates it to the threshold of WP:GNG. I understood that you had at least somewhat copyedited the AI's summaries, but the "glossy" language you kept conferred context and significance that remained unsourced and honestly appears like just another conceptual hallucination/fabrication that AI language models are constantly guilty of. Your entire argument here is basically that Book of the Week is notable by virtue of it being a Radio 4 programme and by virtue of its longevity. That could be true, but it apparently has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources after all this time and all of its broadcasts. And I fail to see where your argument is supported by what is written at Wikipedia:Common knowledge. Can you at all explain yourself beyond making unsupported claims? I hope you understand I am not trying to antagonize you. I am sure Book of the Week is fine programme that plenty of listeners follow and enjoy. I am only trying to verify that it belongs as a standalone article on Wikipdia. But I am not sure how many times I can continue to ask of you what is a policy expectation of all Wikipedia editors. This is not negotiable. Please rethink your editing style and bring your editing into compliance with policy. Οἶδα (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see arguments all over the map here, Keep, Delete and Redirect. Can we get a actual source analysis here? Also, there are multiple needless comments of hostility here that border on personal attacks. Do not insult your fellow editors, focus on the article and its sources, not discussion participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify that my comments had consistently been related to the article, its subject, the edits that have been made to it, and their relation to Wikipedia policy. Forgive me but I was expressing frustration after examining the topic and making a simple appeal for verification and receiving a succession of perfectly irrelevant replies in return.
I disagree with the characterisation that I ignored the article and its sources and instead targeted insults at discussion participants. I had already stated that the article was composed almost exclusively of primary (BBC) coverage, along with insignificant coverage in one Guardian article. That is rather unsophisticated. But if you took issue with me questioning whether a user might not be "interested in doing the work", then I apologise and of course admit I could have resorted to a more strictly conciliatory tone. If you took issue with me expressing bewilderment that a veteran editor of nearly 20 years and over 100,000 edits is brazenly shirking Wikipedia policy, then I apologise and of course admit I could have resorted to a more strictly conciliatory tone. If you took issue with me characterising AI as "inhuman trash", well then I guess I apologise for "hostility" toward an unsentient language model, though I firmly believe they undermine reliability and erode the very spirit of Wikipedia. And that was reflected in their usage here, which inserted insignificant coverage and robotic puffery language into the article, in violation of WP:NPOV.
If we are committed to staying on topic, then introducing this characterisation without fully engaging with it becomes a distraction in itself. This only compounds how much of the discussion has consisted of one editor ignoring every appeal and instead inserting their own invented claims. Οἶδα (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per policy. WP:NOPAGE applies. Also per Οἶδα's assessment of WP:GENERIC and the paucity of a redirect to our readers. (And @Liz:, yes I too note the WP:BLUDGEONING from Snowmanradio.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As seen again below... Οἶδα (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to "Book of the Week (BBC radio series)" to be more specific. I don't think the article is any less notable than countless others on WP, and indeed of more interest or importance depending on individual reader's tastes; however, the main stumbling block here is the shortage of independent reliable sources. Despite the BBC being regarded as a reliable source, self-referencing doesn't cut it, but that issue can be worked on given the time and opportunity which can only be achieved if the article isn't deleted. None of the article's content is controversial, offensive or harmful in any way so give it a chance. BTW Οἶδα, that's a clever, meaningful username! Red Sunset (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATADD (multiples thereof). —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for noticing, however, I should only respond to the topic at hand by affirming what was alluded to above. Your comments here advance unsound deletion arguments:
WP:OTHERSTUFF ("I don't think the article is any less notable than countless others on WP")
WP:ATADD#Personal_taste ("indeed of more interest or importance depending on individual reader's tastes")
WP:SOURCESEXIST ("self-referencing doesn't cut it, but that issue can be worked on given the time and opportunity which can only be achieved if the article isn't deleted.")
WP:HARMLESS ("None of the article's content is controversial, offensive or harmful in any way so give it a chance.") Οἶδα (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been more than one comment about the name of the article, which I can understand. I have started a new discussion about the the name of the article on the article's talk page. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE is relevant here. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added to the article using indepentent sources. I think that the article has been transformed for the better, since the start of this deletion discussion. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article now has seven reliable independant sources, which I think makes the article worthy. There is lots of relevant independant information available; for example pently is found using an internet seach for "BBC OR radio "book of the week" site:www.theguardian.com". I have put an {{under construction}} banner on the article. Amongst other things, the banner invites help to expand the article, which would be helpfull becasue I am busy doing other things. Snowman (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to advance the disscusion about the wiki links that link here. I have looked at the "what links here" wiki links by using "What links here" search results - note the inverted commas for a more focused search on "Book of the Week". There are over 500 pages that link to Book of the Week, probably about 550 pages. Looking at a selection of them, the vast majority are relevant to the BBC's Book of the Week, but a few refer to other "book of the week" books. The huge number of pages with relevant links to BBC's Book of the Week (not relating to the template) comfirms to me that the BBC's Book of the Week article is part of the fabric of the wiki. Snowman (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Snowmanradio: You have made nealy 40% of the edits to the page and replied to almost everyone who disagrees with you. If you persist in WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, I will be forced to request administrative intervention. Thanks, —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To Administrator User: Liz. Please advice me on the comment above made by user Fortuna imperatrix mundi at 11.16 earlier today. Snowman (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a needless comment of hostility here that border[s] on personal attacks, if that's what you mean. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Thank you for revealing some new (to me) WP guidelines, but I agree with snowmanradio that WP:COMMONSENSE could be applied here. The show has a large, regular listener base and features many notable books and narrators, so it seems reasonable to me that the show should be regarded as being notable in its own right. Also, there have been a number of improvements made since my last post by snowmanradio who is evidently trying hard to address the issues raised here, so my recommendation to keep still stands. Red Sunset (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for linking to an essay. What is needed in this article is significant coverage in reliable sources. If the show is as well known as you say, it should not be difficult to find such coverage. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are Snowmanradio and yourself repeatedly making new bullet comments in the discussion? It gives the appearance as if you are trying to WP:BLUDGEON the process. You also did not respond to both of the replies that were made to you above. First Snowmanradio cited Wikipedia:Common knowledge then WP:COMMONSENSE. I fail to see where the relevance of their citation. They are not the same thing and do not support any of the claims made thus far. Can you or Snowmanradio at all explain yourselves beyond making unsupported claims? Saying "The show has a large, regular listener base and features many notable books and narrators, so it seems reasonable to me that the show should be regarded as being notable in its own right." is not a valid rationale. Do you understand how many podcasts there are out there with hundreds of thousands listeners and a long list of notable guests? Most do not have Wiki articles because they have not established independent notability as illustrated by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Forgive my frustation, but what are we doing here? Again, I am only trying to verify that Book of the Week belongs as a stand-alone article on Wikipdia. I am merely asking of two editors what is a policy expectation of all Wikipedia editors. This is not negotiable. Οἶδα (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourses are reliable, see WP:GUARDIAN, WP:THEINDEPENDENT, and WP:RSPBBC. Snowman (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I really wanted to vote delete based on the lack of policy-based discussion so far, but there are clear reviews in The Guardian, The Independent, and what seems like substantive discussion in this book. It is a nightmare to search for because of its title, and should be moved to a disambiguated one if kept, but I do think there's enough here to establish notability. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The book in question contains article-length "intellectual" examination of virtually every single Radio 4 programme, which is the only reason it is even covered there. However, the existence of a single book offering broad critical analysis does not, in itself, confer notability upon each Radio 4 programme up to the threshold of being suitable for stand-alone articles on Wikipedia. I would also encourage you to read that book's section on Book of the Week. I did, and it is actually a clear indictment of the programme's quality and a critique for being "part and parcel of the BBC’s hand-in-glove relationship with the publishing world, which enjoys consistently free promotion of its products by the corporation of a kind that virtually no other industry does. Indeed, half of the books on this list were released by just two publishers, both of whom even enjoyed a bonanza of free promotion for an hour and a quarter a week for two consecutive weeks." Ignoring the primary BBC coverage, this leaves the article with one review in The Independent and five in The Guardian. The former features only brief commentary on a single broadcast and the latter consists of one short-form "review" and four brief sections collected within "This Week in Radio" roundup articles, all of which honestly lean more toward promotional summaries rather than substantive critical analysis. In the absence of more substantive critical engagement or broader cultural impact, I fail to see how the material in the aforementioned book and these trivial articles demonstrate a significant independent notability from BBC Radio 4 and its broadcasting. Dredging up the only obscure coverage we can find and presenting of all these possible details also does not give appropriate weight, which is precisely why I claimed that this expanded article is really not preferable to stub that preceded it. Οἶδα (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, we clearly have three sources offering sigcov (the book, the five guardian pieces, and the Independent (which is 6 paragraphs)), even if you don't like what they have to say about the program. Everything else is tangential. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to merging to somewhere like BBC Radio 4, however. Eddie891 Talk Work 05:52, 2 June 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Book_of_the_Week&oldid=1293540713"