Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burning Valley (novel): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:09, 24 March 2009

Burning Valley (novel)

Contested PROD. PROD was removed without fixing the problem, namely that there are no reliable sources cited, and the author does not have their own article. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google shows a lot of hits - I've added some sources based on that, and also tagged the article for rescue which may result in more/better references (I'm not sure how we feel about political sites as WP:RS for literature.) Artw (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concur with above. JJL (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can tell you how I feel about it: it's dead wrong. WP:RS states that sources should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." These two sources fall well below that bar. I also note that you tacked on the refs without changing a word of the article content to reflect what, if anything, you found in those sources, and that one of the sources is from a publication that the author himself is an editor of, and the article is an interview with him that does not seem to focus specifically on this book, but is more about communism and literature in general. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It gets even better, in the interview, Mr. Bonosky states: "Burning Valley was never reviewed in the press here or in England. None of my 10 published books have ever been reviewed in the press." Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which would appear to be the sad fate of 1950s communist pulp authors in America. On the other hand it does appear to have been on the sylabus at Santa Clara University. [1] Artw (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now how about those reliable sources, find any? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google's top hit for Burning Valley (no quotes) is [2]. That university press site indicates comments or reviews from Simone de Beauvoir, from James Aranson in the National Guardian, and from Michael Gold in The Worker. This site [3] indicates commentary or a review by William Saroyan. Apparently it's now part of a series and has been reprinted [4] with an intro. by Alan Wald. Here's a survey of the author's work including this novel [5]. Two more articles on the author that also discuss this book in particular: [6] ("During the Cold War, his writing and publications flourished. The Burning Valley, rediscovered today as a major proletarian novel, was published in 1953. Its story deals with workers’ struggles in the Pennsylvania coal fields. The Burning Valley was reprinted in 1998 as part of The Radical Novel Reconsidered Series, published by the University of Illinois Press."), [7]. All this is from the first two pages of Google for Burning Valley Phillip Bonosky and should have caused nom. to reconsider the notability of this book. There's more on later pages, including a book review by Bruce Nissen in the Labor Studies Journal here [8] (see bottom of page) and a conference paper [9] and further evidence of it being used in university courses. JJL (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has a number of decent refs. This might also be useful. Zagalejo^^^ 07:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The material cited here from the academic reviews is fully sufficient. DGG (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book is widely taught in Pennsylvania as a counterpoint to the more popular Out of This Furnace by Thomas Bell, another immigrant novel of steel which is set in the same steel town. It also is why the book is included on Wikipedia as a part of the Pittsburgh novels bibliography project. Yes, the article can be better, and my guess is that university students will do so over time--that's the way Wikis work--it is certainly worthy of inclusion now, especially because it was overlooked by mainstream media in the Red Scare 195s.Rudowsky (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I don't get: I've got several users here pointing out sources, and yet the actual text of the article still remains essentially the same as when it was nominated, and no reliable sources have actually been added to the article. If these refs that have been found are useful, reliable, and informative, shouldn't they be added to the article with new content reflecting what it is in the sources? I don't think readers are going to come to the AfD to check the references... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly you should put your money where you're mouth is and work on improving the article using the references above, as it would be a better use of your time than complaining about a deletion that is obviously not going to happen. FWIW I think the article as it stands meets WP:N. Artw (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for my part, I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable in this area and better qualified to put it in context will do so. In any event, the question at AfD is whether it merits inclusion as a subject, not improvement of the article (although that's clearly desirable). JJL (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
-:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.''
-<!--Template:Afd top
-Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
-The result was    '''keep'''. Needs sources, but satisfies [[WP:N]] (non-admin closure). [[User:SeanMD80|<FONT STYLE="italic" COLOR="#008B8B">Sean</FONT><FONT COLOR="#008080">MD80</FONT>]]<sup>[[User_talk:SeanMD80|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/SeanMD80|contribs]]</sup> 17:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 ===[[Burning Valley (novel)]]===
+{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|M}}
 :{{la|Burning Valley (novel)}} (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Burning Valley (novel)|wpReason={{urlencode: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burning Valley (novel)]]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burning Valley (novel)|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 24#{{anchorencode:Burning Valley (novel)}}|View log]])</noinclude>
@@ Line 23: / Line 17: @@
 :* Possibly you should put your money where you're mouth is and work on improving the article using the references above, as it would be a better use of your time than complaining about a deletion that is obviously not going to happen. FWIW I think the article as it stands meets [[WP:N]]. [[User:Artw|Artw]] ([[User talk:Artw|talk]]) 16:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 :*'''Comment''' for my part, I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable in this area and better qualified to put it in context will do so. In any event, the question at AfD is whether it merits inclusion as a subject, not improvement of the article (although that's clearly desirable). [[User:JJL|JJL]] ([[User talk:JJL|talk]]) 16:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
-:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>