Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephants Are Not Birds

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elephants Are Not Birds

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lack of reliable sources to show page can pass notability requirement. Current sources, like Daily Mail, NY Post and Washington Examiner, are not reliable per WP:RSP. Rab V (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page is being "considered for deletion because (Personal attack removed) cannot tolerate people who do not feel the same as they do. It's not about Wikipedia's "high standards", it's political.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Claxingt0n (talk • contribs) 20:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having an ISBN doesn't mean it's notable. The article in its current state reads as an advertisement. I wouldn't say it meets WP:NBOOK, as it's only being covered by a few WP:RS ~~and only for the fact it's not being sold on the Amazon store due to its transphobic content~~ because it's chosen not to sell via Amazon and due to its anti-trans content. Isabelle ^🔔 20:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't banned because of its content: according to the source it's not being sold on Amazon because the publisher/author chose not to. pburka (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the correction, pburka. I've rewritten my comment to clarify those are not related. Isabelle ^🔔 23:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The appropriate subject-specific guideline is WP:NBOOK, which requires that the "book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Superficially, there are some sources, but they're mostly about the manufactured controversy around its publication, so we might disqualify them as WP:NOTNEWS. Ideally, we want to see substantial reviews of the contents of the book itself, not just tabloid stories about its release. If it is in fact notable, no matter how offensive its contents, we should have a neutral article about it, including criticism: there are many similar examples in Category:Propaganda books and pamphlets. However the current contents are mostly unsourced fluff about the non-notable publisher. pburka (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having tried to find better sources, and examining the sources in the article, there's nothing here to establish notability. It's just some faux-outrage in a handful of unreliable tabloids, and the book hasn't attracted any attention in the real world. It's unlikely, given its WP:FRINGE nature, but perhaps Library Journal or Publishers' Weekly will decide to review it and we can reconsider. For now, it fails WP:NBOOK, WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON. pburka (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think pburka's analysis of the situation is correct. What we have here is a failed attempt at a manufactroversy. We don't write articles based on tabloids, and we're not here to give anyone free ad space. XOR'easter (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the analysis above by both Pburka and XOR’easter. It’s not covered by RS; it’s a manufactured controversy without in depth analysis or review. Also, be aware there is a tweet calling for this article to be kept here. —Kbabej (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To date, no substantive reviews and/or critical analysis on which to base an encyclopedic article, and coverage in reliable sources is similarly lacking. DanCherek (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2021 (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.