Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Never Told Anyone

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Never Told Anyone

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

Non-notable book, no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Also, the author's article is tagged with POV issues. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Article has no refernces. Search tool produces only one hit of any note, a review in Kirkus Books. Only one mention in a reliable source. Fails notability. Delete. Tapered (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ To Child Sexual Abuse the phrase is quite common, and it has been established before that redirects don't have to be notable. The phrase is quite obviously attached to this awful genre. L3X1 (distant write) 01:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep This book doesn't seem to be notable and there is almost no coverage of it in secondary sources. I don't think that it should be redirected because I don't think this book has a significant relevance to any other articles. Imalawyer (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant relevance is the fact it's title is a phrase mostly associated with child abuse.L3X1 (distant write) 14:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ @Imalawyer: Because the book will turn up in google searches, because it's 'stock phrase,' redirect is a better idea. Tapered (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my vote to keep, but I would still be opposed to a redirect. I don't think it's sufficiently recognized as a stock phrase that a redirect would be appropriate. Would anyone search "I Never Told Anyone" looking for an article about a stock phrase? Imalawyer (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I used my college's database to look up sourcing and found quite a bit. So far it looks like it began as a bit of a darling in its academic sphere, but has since received some criticism over how it was written. What does everyone say - I'm pinging @L3X1, Imalawyer, Tapered, and Champion: to see what they think. I've expanded the article greatly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks like it's used as a source in various academic works. Here's an older work, but I still see it used or mentioned here (2000), here (2008), here (2010), and here (2015), among many others. It looks like it's considered a fairly groundbreaking work from what I've found. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been substantially improved and the secondary sources prove notability. I've changed my vote to keep. Imalawyer (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks Tokyogirl. The thing abotu redirecting is: If someone googles INTA, a lot of stuff about child abuse will pop up, so why not have the wikipedia article on the search return also? But never mind that, I changed my vote to keep. L3X1 (distant write) 14:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... maybe a hatnote? We could probably add that the title references the fact that a lot of abuse victims say this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this. My worry with the redirect is that there isn't necessarily an automatic thing people would be looking for necessarily - it makes sense to you and I, but there's not really anything in the main child sexual abuse article that uses this phrase or has a section that uses a similar phrase. For example, you'd expect to see something about this in Child_sexual_abuse#Disclosure but that discusses disclosure where the children are forthcoming about the abuse, even if just slightly. I don't see anything in the article about a child not coming forward to talk about the abuse that would make sense for the redirect necessarily. It's not that I'm against it, just that I'm just uncomfortable redirecting it without something to show why it would redirect, as it may not have the same context for every person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been greatly improved by Tokyogirl and references added. Some of these are reviews of the book and demonstrate that it meets WP:BKCRIT. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources reliable. Ergo notable. Good job of creating context. Tapered (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Great work on the improved content. --NoGhost (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep improvements in content pass GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2017 (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.

A pox on sockpuppets. L3X1 (distant write) 18:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]