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. Recent additions of references show that this book passes WP:GNG. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rediscovering God in America

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Naturally, because the author is Gingrich, it has been mentioned in news articles, but more about Gingrich than about the book itself. Could be redirected to Gingrich. Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge Rediscovering God in America (film series) into this. EDIT: Some more references: Here's the Publisher's Weekly review of the book.[1] This NYT article has 3 paras on the book[2]. There's multiple mentions in Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices, Volume 1 by Roger Chapman. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't notice the series article, or I would have nominated it for deletion also. The series is no more notable than each individual component.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put it up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Who is Newt Gingrich???... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NYT bestseller. The worst case is that we'd merge into one of the articles about the authors or their production company. Warden (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NYT bestseller. It is through reliable secondary coverage that this topic passes WP:BOOK. Although closely related to the film, any topic has independent and sourcable notability determined by coverage, the book and the documentaries are so deeply intertwined that is best to have them all togerther at one location. As for notability, the connected topics have the expected extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources, so soucable notability is not in doubt for either topic. Improving the articles will simply require a bit of work... and lacking editorial attention to either of the articles is not cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it's clear, I did search Google News and I looked at the hits, or I wouldn't have phrased it as I did in the nom. Perhaps my search should have been broader, although I'm not sure I would have accepted some of the sources you've found and added to the article as reliable sources (biased blogs and op-eds). I have no objection to keeping the article if that's the consensus, but I didn't nominate it for lack of quality or lack of sourcing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No aspersion toward the nominator, only a statement for those who will visit this AFD later. My comment was toward the article sitting far too long unimproved, and to address that when something can be improved, it serves the project to do so. Per WP:GNG, there is no requirement that the book or film be the sole topic of any source, just so long as the topic is written of in a more-than-trivial manner.. and "mention" of other aspects of Gingrich's life would most certainly be expected considering his background. I looked beyond hits before working on the topic. In looking only at what was used to expand and source the article (so far... and there are many more)... American Thinker is a conservative online magazine. The Anderson Independent-Mail is an newspaper in South Carolina. The Harlan Daily Enterprise is a paper in Kentucky. Politico is an American political journalism organization founded by John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei formerly of The Washington Post, and Variety is THE source accepted as suitable for information on films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the trouble to explain.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do so and to show the results of my few edits. The article first created in 2007 and the unsourced, two-paragraph stub, as originally nominated did not look too promising. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom,the book nor the series meet notability requirements of WP:NBOOK,Gingrich is of course notable, but not at the level that every book he's ever written should be on WP, nor every media project he's ever been involved in. The sources recently added are biased blogs and op-eds as the nominator pointed out, these are serious WP:IRS issues. Especially with these sources : American Thinker, Politico Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By the instructions at WP:NBOOK#Criteria it passes WP:NBOOK, in that this New York Times bestseller has itself been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, and these include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. If you find flaws with two if the article's (so far 20) sources, take issue with them at WP:RSN to determine if they are suitable or not in context to what is being sourced (along with Independent-Mail and Harlan Daily Enterprise, the American Thinker source simply cites "is a book written by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with photography from his wife Callista Gingrich", and Politico sources "...second book in the series premiered in September 2009 at the Washington Visitor Center, hosted by the author and his wife", and none of these are used to cite commentary or analysis), but know that both sides of a "politcial spectrum" are required for netrality and balance. We are speaking about a bestseller by a conservative Republican politician, so naturally sources will speak about the man and his ideology in their analysis and commentary about his works. I suppose we could dig and find German or Italian or French non-American sources to help cite the article. We do not write about EVERY book or project with which Gingrich is connected... but when one of them catches enough atttention of the media to meet WP:GNG, we can and do. And no... I am not a Republican, nor a fan of things Gingrich. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added even more references. This book has been covered in a wide range of publications and has spawned films and a series of conferences. It keeps cropping up in discussions of Gingrich's work. The book is notable on its own, but together with the media coverage of the adaptations and the wider interest shown in the subject, it is even more notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Major kudos for the additional work! I do agree that book and films have enough independent and sorcable notability, but they are so deeply intertwined, I felt it best to encourage and support them being covered together in one location, figuring it best to have one comprehensive article than two that are less so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: great job with expansion. More than enough sources for notability, NYT bestseller. – Lionel ^(talk) 13:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: NYT bestseller, lots of news coverage, clearly satisfies WP:N. -- 202.124.75.77 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)— 202.124.75.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Notable author, notable book. Tons of reference. Jared-Phill (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2012 (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.