Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mother Court

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mother Court[edit]

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

Non-notable book; perhaps merge to the article about the author, James D. Zirin. This AfD is concurrent with one on the same author's other book, at WP:Articles for deletion/Supremely Partisan. The Zirin bio article very narrowly survived an AfD, with "no consensus" a few months ago. A regular merge proposal at Talk:James D. Zirin produced almost no input, aside from suggestions that:

One of the books might squeak by under WP:BOOKCRIT.
A countervailing view that there's really little salvageable here, since most of the content is excessive pull-quoting from reviews, not encyclopedic coverage.

I would add that the primary editor of these pages continues to be Zirin himself (see, e.g., rejected edit "request" here that is really more of a statement of how Zirin is going to continue writing about himself). I thought that this would all be taken as a warning sign by Zirin that he needed to abide by WP:COI, find independent reliable sources, and suggest neutral, improving edits (if anything) rather than continue to work directly on his own bio material here, but the situation's simply gotten worse. And is this after multiple CoI warnings at the user's talk page. The entire mess is just untoward and inappropriate, an abuse of WP as a self-promotion mechanism, and it needs to stop. Zirin + his work are perhaps marginally notable, gathered into one article, but we definitely do not need three articles, two of which don't really qualify as encyclopedia articles at all.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NB--Jaldous1 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Book reviews and feature stories about this book in major media carry it past WP:NBOOK. Nomination appears to be WP:FORUMSHOP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. Multiple book reviews unequivocally satisfy GNG and NBOOK. This is not even remotely doubtful and comments like "squeak by" are simply nonsense. Moreover, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R, since the author has an article. Quoting reviews is not unencyclopedic either. James500 (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I stated when the nom proposed merging to the author, this satisfies WP:BOOKCRIT criteria #1, having been reviewed by The Times (London), The New York Review of Books, The Times Literary Supplement, The New York Times, The Economist, and the Providence Journal.

The article is on a notable topic and has no identified WP:NPOV problem. It is not particularly good, but lists sources which could be used to improve it. Deleting (or merging) it is not the solution to disruptive conflict of interest editing (especially editing on another article - Jzirin's only activity on this article was to add the name of a reviewer, something no one has objected to). According to WP:COI, "If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts." The forum in which to request such a block would be WP:COIN or WP:ANI. This doesn't belong at AfD. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews in the NYT, NYRB, TLS, and Economist are pretty much as good as it gets for book reviews. In general, I recommend merging sources from articles like this to their parent/author article with a note re: summary style and otherwise very little fanfare. It doesn't matter whether this article is stripped to its studs with several reviews cited or instead listed as a single line with multiple refs in the author article, but based on the above reviews, we can certainly do encyclopedic justice to the book as a topic. czar 21:54, 2 June 2018 (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.