- 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. Consensus that the article now meets the notability guidelines, most of the deletes and redirects were before the new evidence provided later in the discussion after which there was no support for deletion. Davewild ( talk) 15:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Growing Up Straight (1982 book) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable book./ Only 57 holdings in worldcat. Onr review fro m a specialist magazine is not enough for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:BKCRIT nowhere says that a book's notability depends on the number of holdings in worldcat. It seems strange to be nominating the article for deletion simply because it currently rests on only a single source. There definitely were other reviews;
Kenneth Zucker, a well-known figure, reviewed the book in 1984 in
Archives of Sexual Behavior, a respectable academic source. Since that source could be added, I don't see a basis for deleting the article (though this isn't yet a vote).
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 06:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - Don't think article is sufficiently neutral, especially given the WP:FRINGE nature, however basis for nomination is unclear. Worldcat is not relevant. Those in favour of keeping should seek more sources demonstrating notability and ensure article is more neutral. AusLondonder ( talk) 10:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:BKCRIT nowhere says that a book's notability depends on the number of holdings in worldcat. It seems strange to be nominating the article for deletion simply because it currently rests on only a single source. There definitely were other reviews;
Kenneth Zucker, a well-known figure, reviewed the book in 1984 in
Archives of Sexual Behavior, a respectable academic source. Since that source could be added, I don't see a basis for deleting the article (though this isn't yet a vote).
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 06:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep sufficient coverage to pass the notability guidelines. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 12:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to George Alan Rekers, I don't think there's enough coverage to establish that this book is notable independently of its author. Most coverage I could find was passing mentions in news articles about Rekers, e.g. [1] [2] [3] Everymorning talk 14:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I looked at those references; most of them are indeed only brief mentions, but the third is slightly more substantial, and in fact quite a useful source. I believe it helps to show that Rekers's book has been a subject of commentary. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 09:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not assert any notability and does not pass WP:NBOOK. Softlavender ( talk) 20:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK. Rekers is certainly notable, but as Everymorning above, the coverage I'm finding is largely brief mentions/in passing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Everymorning is not completely correct; most of those references are indeed only brief mentions, but one is more substantial. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 09:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Have any of the delete voters above bothered to look at the review by Zucker? I don't currently have the full article, but I looked at an extract from it, and it's hardly a passing mention. If I manage to get access to the article, I will be adding it to improve the article; I would then ask the delete voters to reconsider their position. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can find it via my school's database. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Tokyogirl79. I appreciate your work and your willingness to consider that improving the article is worthwhile. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. I was able to find the Zucker review and it is quite extensive. I also found a lengthy mention about the work in an academic textbook and a mention in an academic journal article. The coverage is light, but it is enough to pass NBOOK offhand. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per Tokyogirl79. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- No problem- in all fairness the sources are somewhat difficult to find since there's a lot of unusable stuff to wade through. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I have found another source that discusses this book; it can be seen here on Google books. It states that the book was influential, and gives quite a detailed description of it. I think it's becoming clear that both Growing Up Straight and Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity are notable and that the deletion attempt is misguided. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 10:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I would accept a merge to the author. I should have thought of that initially. We could justify a separate article perhaps on the basis of the added material, but I think it would be more helpful merged, and according to WP:N, we can choose to do that.
DGG (
talk ) 04:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me what the advantage of a merge would be in this case; if there were a benefit to a merge it should be easy to say what it is. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Non-trivial mentions in academic journals, a major national newspaper, and multiple other sources mean that this clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Any neutrality issues could be fixed by normal editing. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 06:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This was an important book in its day, but the article here says almost nothing about it. In fact, I find the article to be quite odd. Hopefully someone will improve it. LaMona ( talk) 06:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Consensus that the article now meets the notability guidelines, most of the deletes and redirects were before the new evidence provided later in the discussion after which there was no support for deletion. Davewild ( talk) 15:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Growing Up Straight (1982 book) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable book./ Only 57 holdings in worldcat. Onr review fro m a specialist magazine is not enough for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:BKCRIT nowhere says that a book's notability depends on the number of holdings in worldcat. It seems strange to be nominating the article for deletion simply because it currently rests on only a single source. There definitely were other reviews;
Kenneth Zucker, a well-known figure, reviewed the book in 1984 in
Archives of Sexual Behavior, a respectable academic source. Since that source could be added, I don't see a basis for deleting the article (though this isn't yet a vote).
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 06:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - Don't think article is sufficiently neutral, especially given the WP:FRINGE nature, however basis for nomination is unclear. Worldcat is not relevant. Those in favour of keeping should seek more sources demonstrating notability and ensure article is more neutral. AusLondonder ( talk) 10:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:BKCRIT nowhere says that a book's notability depends on the number of holdings in worldcat. It seems strange to be nominating the article for deletion simply because it currently rests on only a single source. There definitely were other reviews;
Kenneth Zucker, a well-known figure, reviewed the book in 1984 in
Archives of Sexual Behavior, a respectable academic source. Since that source could be added, I don't see a basis for deleting the article (though this isn't yet a vote).
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 06:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep sufficient coverage to pass the notability guidelines. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 12:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to George Alan Rekers, I don't think there's enough coverage to establish that this book is notable independently of its author. Most coverage I could find was passing mentions in news articles about Rekers, e.g. [1] [2] [3] Everymorning talk 14:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I looked at those references; most of them are indeed only brief mentions, but the third is slightly more substantial, and in fact quite a useful source. I believe it helps to show that Rekers's book has been a subject of commentary. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 09:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not assert any notability and does not pass WP:NBOOK. Softlavender ( talk) 20:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK. Rekers is certainly notable, but as Everymorning above, the coverage I'm finding is largely brief mentions/in passing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Everymorning is not completely correct; most of those references are indeed only brief mentions, but one is more substantial. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 09:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Have any of the delete voters above bothered to look at the review by Zucker? I don't currently have the full article, but I looked at an extract from it, and it's hardly a passing mention. If I manage to get access to the article, I will be adding it to improve the article; I would then ask the delete voters to reconsider their position. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can find it via my school's database. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Tokyogirl79. I appreciate your work and your willingness to consider that improving the article is worthwhile. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. I was able to find the Zucker review and it is quite extensive. I also found a lengthy mention about the work in an academic textbook and a mention in an academic journal article. The coverage is light, but it is enough to pass NBOOK offhand. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per Tokyogirl79. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- No problem- in all fairness the sources are somewhat difficult to find since there's a lot of unusable stuff to wade through. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I have found another source that discusses this book; it can be seen here on Google books. It states that the book was influential, and gives quite a detailed description of it. I think it's becoming clear that both Growing Up Straight and Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity are notable and that the deletion attempt is misguided. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 10:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I would accept a merge to the author. I should have thought of that initially. We could justify a separate article perhaps on the basis of the added material, but I think it would be more helpful merged, and according to WP:N, we can choose to do that.
DGG (
talk ) 04:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me what the advantage of a merge would be in this case; if there were a benefit to a merge it should be easy to say what it is. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Non-trivial mentions in academic journals, a major national newspaper, and multiple other sources mean that this clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Any neutrality issues could be fixed by normal editing. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 06:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This was an important book in its day, but the article here says almost nothing about it. In fact, I find the article to be quite odd. Hopefully someone will improve it. LaMona ( talk) 06:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.