Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dictionary of Insulting Quotations

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 redirect to Jonathon Green. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of Insulting Quotations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Most google hits I could find were for stuff like "Buy this at Barnes and Noble" Completely unreferenced page with just a short description as well. I am trying to find any notability so far no luck. Wgolf (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jonathon Green or delete. This article looks like a review, but I can't read the full text. Besides that, there's about 50 hits on Google. It's a valid search term that should probably redirect to the author, but I can't find any real evidence of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange that I didn't see those other Highbeam articles, because I obviously did check Highbeam. Well, I'm not convinced yet, but those links throw enough doubt that it's probably not worth arguing over it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. "Here's the Heavy Roller". The Mercury. 2013-07-16. Retrieved 2015-04-14 – via HighBeam. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

     The article notes:

  2. Hunt, George W. (1997-03-29). "Cassell Dictionary of Insulting Quotations". America. Retrieved 2015-04-14 – via HighBeam. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

     The article notes:

  3. Bevis, Hillier (1997-01-11). "Expressing hatred and contempt". The Spectator. Retrieved 2015-04-14. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

     The article notes:

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Dictionary of Insulting Quotations to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: The reviews in America and The Spectator clearly establish that the book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.

  Cunard (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: All of the quotations are from http://business.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=+Cassell+Dictionary+of+Insulting+Quotations.&searchType=Article&currentPage=0&orderBy=. Cunard (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are some mentions in reviews, but I do not think they amount to significant, in-depth coverage on the work. Note that the Spectator link is a "group review" dealing with 3 different books. Neutrality^talk 18:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Spectator link provides significant coverage about all three books. This does not diminish it from establishing notability for Dictionary of Insulting Quotations. Cunard (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't accept that merely being reviewed automatically confers notability, particularly if the review is a "group review" in a minor publication. Such reviews are routine and run-of-the-mill. Neutrality^talk 04:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Changing my vote to 'redirect per suggestion below. Neutrality^talk 00:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Jonathon Green - The links above do not, to me, provide enough substantive coverage of the book. The first takes a quote from it but isn't about it, the second is not a review but a mention/musing/I don't know what (I certainly wouldn't say "substantive", to again use the word used in the notability guideline), and the third is a bit better but, for me, not enough to see notability here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutrality (talk · contribs) and Rhododendrites (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to Jonathon Green (with the history preserved under the redirect) over deletion? Cunard (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cunard: Sounds good to me. Updated my !vote accordingly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Since this a short stub, a redirect to the author's article probably would be better than a stand-alone article. I have struck out my "keep" vote.

  I ask the closing admin not to delete the history so that the redirect can be easily undone if editors in the future find more sources about the subject that could be used to expand the article significantly.

  Cunard (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, as a compromise, I would support a redirect. Neutrality^talk 00:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Unless someone is going to expand this current-one sentence useless article, just redirect to Jonathon Green. There are hundreds of notable novels from the early 20th and 19th centuries we don't have articles on yet, i wouldn't want us to have one sentence stubs for all of them, its of no value to the reader.-Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:23, 6 May 2015 (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.