Talk:Is Homosexuality a Menace?
Latest comment: 10 years ago by FreeKnowledgeCreator in topic Notability
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Is Homosexuality a Menace? article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Notability edit
Since the notability of this book has been questioned, I should note that I have found two additional sources that discuss it and that others probably exist as well. See, for example, David K. Johnson's book The Lavender Scare here and Pippa Holloway's Other Souths here. These are both recent, scholarly works. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I saw those before tagging. They seemed like minor mentions though with enough citations it can add up. Typically a book needs to pass WP:NBOOK. Is the information in these sources something we can use to write an article with? They just seem like quoting and data while making a point, not about the book itself. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's not much of a distinction. They discuss the book in relation to larger issues, yes, but they do discuss it. That two recent books, both published within the last five years, find this book worth mentioning strongly suggests it is notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- They don't discussion the book or author in terms of significance, rather some information taken from the book in relation to another point. That suggests notability, but would need a whole lot of cites like it to support on grounds of widely cited, more than a couple. Look I'm not AfD'ing but someone might just friendly warning based on my initial scan. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, that's not correct. Johnson gives the book as one example of the way that a "perceived connection between sexual perversion, Washington D. C., and government bureaucracy" became widely accepted in American popular culture in the 1950s. It's true that he doesn't say "it was a significant book" in so many words, but it's not reasonable to insist that a source say something like that. If the book weren't significant, then there'd be no sense in using it as an example. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- They don't discussion the book or author in terms of significance, rather some information taken from the book in relation to another point. That suggests notability, but would need a whole lot of cites like it to support on grounds of widely cited, more than a couple. Look I'm not AfD'ing but someone might just friendly warning based on my initial scan. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's not much of a distinction. They discuss the book in relation to larger issues, yes, but they do discuss it. That two recent books, both published within the last five years, find this book worth mentioning strongly suggests it is notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Article notability and created by a sock edit
Article should be deleted in accordance with socky policy. The creator was known for his ideologically motivated edits, and this is a case of WP:OLDBOOK Notability.