- 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 speedily deleted as WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo ( talk) 15:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Privileges of War (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-fiction book with no claim to notability, should be deleted as not meeting any of the notability criteria for books nor the general notability criteria. None of the references mentions the book at all, and I fail to find any reliable secondary sources. That episodes described in the book were the subject of news reports does not make the book itself notable. A small independent film company has apparently picked up an option on the book (but again, this is not actually referenced anywhere) - if a notable film comes out of it, that will be a different matter, but at that point, somebody who is not affiliated with the author of the book will probably create an article about it. The author of the current article appears to have a strong conflict of interest; they are obviously editing in good faith but may not have fully understood Wikipedia's notability and verifiability policies. bonadea contributions talk 13:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with everything Bonadea wrote. I ran a Google search on "privileges of war". There were 62 hits, a fair number of them not using the phrase in reference to the book. Of the ones that did, I found one, this, that wasn't involved in sales or promotion of the book, and that had as many as three sentences about it, and even those were in passing. Largoplazo ( talk) 13:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I disagree completely with Bonadea and Largoplaza and am utterly amazed that deletion would even be suggested. I am sickened that a book which discusses the true and well documented selfless actions of a small team of American soldiers who risked their lives for the freedom of 165 primitive mountain villagers is not . . . "notable" in itself. Yet, a fictional account of made-up accounts of heroism, as described in the book The Green Berets, makes its way to the pages of Wikipedia. The only things that made that book "notable" was how inaccurate it was and how poorly it was received by critics, the public and . . . real soldiers. So, if Wikipedia were to drop Privileges of War and keep The Green Berets . . . what statement does that make about the Wikipedia platform? ThomasARoss —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which exists to document that which is notable, per Wikipedia's definition of notability. This is not the place to discuss the notability of any other articles - each article stands and falls on its own merits. The article The Green Berets (book) may not have a particularly strong claim to notability either, but again, that's irrelevant here. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if, and only if, after looking at this and this, and making a good-faith attempt to prove that the book is notable, you find that it isn't. (That's what I did before nominating this article.) As stated above, that a book deals with notable events or concepts does not make the book itself notable. In addition, notability has nothing to do with whether something is worthy or interesting; I have no opinion about that, one way or another, and it wouldn't matter if I did. The fact remains that the article doesn't include a single reference to a source that mentions the book, and that very strongly suggests that the book is not notable. -- bonadea contributions talk 14:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The book lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG. It fails WP:BKCRIT as well since none of the other criteria are met. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 17:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I searched, but the only thing I could find was this local source about the book, so the book looks to fail WP:NBOOK. Now the book's accuracy or the lack of accuracy of other works are not considered arguments that would give or take away notability as far as WP:NBOOK is considered, as notability is decided by the work's coverage in reliable sources or the coverage for any adaptations in RS. Green Berets would pass NBOOK because of the notable film adaptation starring John Wayne. In any case, Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and if Moore's book is very inaccurate then the way to go about correcting that is to find sourcing that backs this claim up and add it to the article. (Offhand it looks like this might be doable.) It's a shame that we can't have an article on every book that was published through a reputable publisher, but the guidelines on Wikipedia are too strict for this and they're unlikely to ever become more loose. If the film adaptation occurs and becomes notable, then the article can be recreated, but not before that point or before the book gains coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nauseating commentary . . . no wonder this world is in the state it is. Where is inspiration? What do you people do in real life when you aren't hiding behind screen names amd numbers? Please delete the page . . . it would be an honor not to be a part of Wikipedia. If I could delete it myself . . . I would. You should be ashamed of yourselves. ThomasARoss —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The author has blanked the article and expressed a wish to delete it, and since the discussion has unanimously pointed towards a delete anyway I went ahead and tagged it for speedy deletion per author request. @ ThomasARoss: I'm sorry your experience of Wikipedia was unpleasant. It is not unusual that people's expectations of what belongs in Wikipedia are different from what the guidelines say, but please note that civility towards your fellow editors is required. -- bonadea contributions talk 08:41, 14 August 2016 (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 speedily deleted as WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo ( talk) 15:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Privileges of War (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-fiction book with no claim to notability, should be deleted as not meeting any of the notability criteria for books nor the general notability criteria. None of the references mentions the book at all, and I fail to find any reliable secondary sources. That episodes described in the book were the subject of news reports does not make the book itself notable. A small independent film company has apparently picked up an option on the book (but again, this is not actually referenced anywhere) - if a notable film comes out of it, that will be a different matter, but at that point, somebody who is not affiliated with the author of the book will probably create an article about it. The author of the current article appears to have a strong conflict of interest; they are obviously editing in good faith but may not have fully understood Wikipedia's notability and verifiability policies. bonadea contributions talk 13:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with everything Bonadea wrote. I ran a Google search on "privileges of war". There were 62 hits, a fair number of them not using the phrase in reference to the book. Of the ones that did, I found one, this, that wasn't involved in sales or promotion of the book, and that had as many as three sentences about it, and even those were in passing. Largoplazo ( talk) 13:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I disagree completely with Bonadea and Largoplaza and am utterly amazed that deletion would even be suggested. I am sickened that a book which discusses the true and well documented selfless actions of a small team of American soldiers who risked their lives for the freedom of 165 primitive mountain villagers is not . . . "notable" in itself. Yet, a fictional account of made-up accounts of heroism, as described in the book The Green Berets, makes its way to the pages of Wikipedia. The only things that made that book "notable" was how inaccurate it was and how poorly it was received by critics, the public and . . . real soldiers. So, if Wikipedia were to drop Privileges of War and keep The Green Berets . . . what statement does that make about the Wikipedia platform? ThomasARoss —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which exists to document that which is notable, per Wikipedia's definition of notability. This is not the place to discuss the notability of any other articles - each article stands and falls on its own merits. The article The Green Berets (book) may not have a particularly strong claim to notability either, but again, that's irrelevant here. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if, and only if, after looking at this and this, and making a good-faith attempt to prove that the book is notable, you find that it isn't. (That's what I did before nominating this article.) As stated above, that a book deals with notable events or concepts does not make the book itself notable. In addition, notability has nothing to do with whether something is worthy or interesting; I have no opinion about that, one way or another, and it wouldn't matter if I did. The fact remains that the article doesn't include a single reference to a source that mentions the book, and that very strongly suggests that the book is not notable. -- bonadea contributions talk 14:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The book lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG. It fails WP:BKCRIT as well since none of the other criteria are met. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 17:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I searched, but the only thing I could find was this local source about the book, so the book looks to fail WP:NBOOK. Now the book's accuracy or the lack of accuracy of other works are not considered arguments that would give or take away notability as far as WP:NBOOK is considered, as notability is decided by the work's coverage in reliable sources or the coverage for any adaptations in RS. Green Berets would pass NBOOK because of the notable film adaptation starring John Wayne. In any case, Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and if Moore's book is very inaccurate then the way to go about correcting that is to find sourcing that backs this claim up and add it to the article. (Offhand it looks like this might be doable.) It's a shame that we can't have an article on every book that was published through a reputable publisher, but the guidelines on Wikipedia are too strict for this and they're unlikely to ever become more loose. If the film adaptation occurs and becomes notable, then the article can be recreated, but not before that point or before the book gains coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nauseating commentary . . . no wonder this world is in the state it is. Where is inspiration? What do you people do in real life when you aren't hiding behind screen names amd numbers? Please delete the page . . . it would be an honor not to be a part of Wikipedia. If I could delete it myself . . . I would. You should be ashamed of yourselves. ThomasARoss —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The author has blanked the article and expressed a wish to delete it, and since the discussion has unanimously pointed towards a delete anyway I went ahead and tagged it for speedy deletion per author request. @ ThomasARoss: I'm sorry your experience of Wikipedia was unpleasant. It is not unusual that people's expectations of what belongs in Wikipedia are different from what the guidelines say, but please note that civility towards your fellow editors is required. -- bonadea contributions talk 08:41, 14 August 2016 (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.