Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Turning Point in National History

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 merge to Karel van Wolferen. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Turning Point in National History

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

This article is about a Dutch non-fiction book. There are problems with the article's notability and sources for years. The impact of the book is unclear. The only sources are an interview with one of the authors on the website of the Dutch Socialist Party, a political party (thus not neutral) and a page on another wiki-project. And finally, the last source is the back cover. It also suffers POV-problems, since there is only a "support"-section, although this last problem is no reason for deletion on itself.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the nominator.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Query - is there a connection between the author and the political party to make the party a non-independent source? We don't necessarily require sources to be neutral, we just require content here to be neutral. But if it's not independent of the subject, that's different. As an interview, we'd also need to be clear about the extent to which it might be a primary source. I assume you are a Dutch speaker Jeff5102? Can you fill in the blanks? Stalwart111 22:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if the author is affiliated with the SP, but I do know that they share similar views on the foreign politics of the USA. In this way, the interview will not be held in a neutral way- what wouldn’t be a problem if other (better) sources and references would have been available. But this is not the case. By the way, the interview in the source dates from 2003, in which Van Wolferen discusses another book he authored. This makes it difficult to serve as a source of the book he published in 2005. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing similar views wouldn't make the SP a non-independent source then. It might talk about the book/author in a way that is complimentary but, again, we don't necessarily require the sources to be neutral, just that our reporting of their content here is neutral. So on the basis that it is independent of the subject (even if biased/non-neutral) it is probably okay. Of concern, though, is your further point that the book was published in 2005 while the interview was held two years earlier in 2003. A 2003 interview obviously can't be focussed on a book not published until two years later. For the purposes of this AfD I'm probably at weak delete because I still can't read the sources but from what has been explained (with my thanks to Jeff5102), I have serous doubts about them. Stalwart111 09:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NBOOK. Een keerpunt in de vaderlandse geschiedenis does not meet the relevant notability standard. Also, it hasn't been sourced since 2009... gidonb (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Amber provided this link to a Google search. I really haven't much time now, but following your link and having a quick look through it, the 59 results are mostly book sale sites (and not all are about the book). I haven't quite followed all the other links, but the book is number 3 in a top 10, based on sales by a major bookshop in Amsterdam. And here's a lengthy review (lousy Google translation :) ). Here's a film of a lecture, also showing Van Agt, former 3fold Dutch Prime Minister, who heartily supports the book. Hardly irrelevant I'd say. Concerning the support section, as I already wrote on the talk page, of course the support section is pov. It's van Agt's pov. It's support by a former PM. DirkvdM (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A PM in the late 1970s and early 1980s, who is now a non-central political activist, attended the presentation. How many book presentations are attended or lead by politicians, former politicians and other officials and celebrities worldwide? It doesn't imply notability and is not listed under NBOOK as establishing notability. The fact that the book only gets reviewed at blogs and is at most listed elsewhere, doesn't imply notability either. gidonb (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge very briefly with the article on the author as a reasonable solution, redirecting from both Dutch title and the English translation of the title--since the book has never been translated into English, there is no true English title. At present it's the author article only as an item in a list. . We have no way of knowing the importance of the book from the material presented. That the PM attended the presentation shows no more than that the PM thought the book would help his political purposes. The book, unlike some of the other work by the author, has never been translated into english or any other language.. . It therefore cannot be assumed to have made an impact out of the country. In contrast, his most important book The enigma of Japanese power : people and politics in a stateless nation has been translated into 10 languages; it has,appropriately, a WP article of its own. DGG 15:30, 29 May 2013

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.