Talk:Muhammad Ali: The Glory Years

More References

1. http://archive.thegleaner.com/news/381799861.xhtml

2. https://bookpage.com/reviews/3211-felix-dennis-muhammad-ali-glory-years#.V86b2jscWgQ

3. http://www.courier-journal.com/wlna/sports/boxing/muhammad-ali/2014/03/26/ali-parkinsons/5085433/

4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-lee/what-will-you-do-in-your-_b_10374696.html

5. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/06/05/het-leven-van-muhammad-ali-in-tien-ronden-a1402427

@Soham321: I appreciate the sources you have added, but none of them significantly cover the book as an independent work. discussion of the book might be merited in Mohammed Ali, but their are not a signficiant number of reviews shown per Wikipedia:Significant coverage. Sadads (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

OR for example, consider merging to Muhammad_Ali_in_media_and_popular_culture. Each of his biographies could be talked about with some depth there. Sadads (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Sadads. I disagree. These are the relevant extracts from the first reference i gave:

By the end of 1983, Ali's speech and gait had worsened, and he had developed tremors in his left hand, according to "Muhammad Ali: The Glory Years," a 2002 book by Felix Dennis and Don Atyeo. But like other instances during Ali's struggle, he and his family didn't go public immediately. An official statement — saying he had mild symptoms of Parkinson's syndrome — wasn't made until September 1984.When Ali later gave a biographer access to his medical records, the complete diagnosis came out — "post-traumatic Parkinson's due to injuries from fighting," Dennis and Atyeo wrote....And in 1988, Dennis and Atyeo said, Ali had blood filtered through a machine in a South Carolina clinic, purportedly to eliminate pesticide toxins.

This is the relevant extract from the second reference i gave:

A boxing giant's endless appeal Muhammad Ali: The Glory Years stands out in this crowd on several counts. First, it focuses entirely on one person. Second, almost all of its photos are black and white. Finally, the text-to-picture balance is just about even. As a result, a less sensational, more reflective tone emerges, as well as a more focused sense of time and drama. From the opening shot, a breathtaking look at the young Cassius Clay holding a pose in profile and under water, the imagery restricts itself to his glory years, when his looks were as potent as his punches and as dazzling as his footwork. And in capturing him in gritty gyms, or in some quaint neighborhood with his mother, and of course in the ring against opponents both hapless and deadly, the storyline unfolds on the power of image alone.It's the text, though, that completes these pictures. Authors Felix Dennis and Don Atyeo meet the challenge of finding angles that haven't already been explored a hundred times, such as the struggle for allegiance at the early stages of his career between Cassius Clay Sr. and Officer Joe Martin, the young fighter's first coach. It takes a little work to find these insights, but in the end the story proves so compelling that it's hardly work at all.

Please note that i gave the above references after just a preliminary search. Further, please note that one of the co-authors of the book (Felix Dennis) is a notable person and has his own wikipedia entry. The argument can be made that any book written by Felix Dennis is notable because Dennis himself is very notable. My suggestion is that we wait for other editors, particularly those who have been editing WP articles pertaining to Muhammad Ali, to weigh in on this issue. I will agree to whatever consensus emerges. Soham321 (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, do take a look at the references that have been given for these books: The Soul of a Butterfly and Muhammad Ali:His Life and Times. Soham321 (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:OSE and WP:NOTINHERITED. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:OSE is an unofficial essay and so i am ignoring it completely. WP:NOTINHERITED is relevant to this discussion though. Thank you. Note though that If we strictly follow WP:NOTINHERITED then we would be obliged to delete The Soul of a Butterfly which is an autobiography of Ali, for which there seem to be no reliable sources available (the one source that has been given, the Boxinginsider.com article, makes no mention of this book). Soham321 (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes actually, that was going to be my next proposal: I would suggest merging all of these into a "Biographies of Muhammad Ali" article, that gives room for exploring each biography, and you can point at literature surveys by researchers who talk about who has written about Ali, and compare between them. We did something like that for Exhibitions of artifacts from the tomb of Tutankhamun, because each of the exhibits was not neccessarily independently notable, but as a collection of activities, they pretty clearly are notable. You also have a lot of good examples of how this could work, for example Biographies_of_Johann_Sebastian_Bach, List_of_biographies_of_Muhammad or Biographies_of_Oscar_Wilde. Sadads (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion is that every editor who has been involved in editing any biography or autobiography or template pertaining to Ali should be pinged for feedback before thinking along these lines. It could become a time-sink if chaos were to ensue if you attempt to do what you are suggesting. Your proposal for having an individual WP article containing information about all the biographies and autobiographies of Ali is a good one, but it could be argued that the individual WP pages of these books should also be maintained. I am personally ok with either alternative (merging all Ali biographies and autobiographies into one WP page and deleting the other WP pages; or merging all Ali biographies and autobiographies into one WP page while simultaneously maintaining the individual WP pages of each book). Soham321 (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You would redirect the page! If you want to preserve this article from deletion, I suggest starting the merge discussion per WP:Merge. Based on the depth of the other biography pages, I don't think anyone is going to debate this. Sadads (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

i have participated in discussions where the title of the book to be used in its WP page has been seriously disputed (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:La_Religieuse_(novel) ; and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Supplément_au_voyage_de_Bougainville ). I don't think it is appropriate to do whole scale merging of all biographies and autobiographies of Ali without more extensive discussion. My suggestion is that you temporarily remove the deletion tag which you have placed on the main article. You can re-insert it later again. Soham321 (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sadads and others. Ali was, and likely is, one of the most honored, known, and respected people (recently)alive(alas). As with other historical figures, each book on the subject, especially if it covers information not included in other books, seems notable. I'd suggest Keeping this, let interested editors add to it, and see where it is in a few months (and please add any new References listed at the top of this section). Coming upon the page and reading it actually got me interested in finding and reading a copy of this book, and I would think others would find it via the template or Ali's article. As for merging all of the books on Ali, that would be like merging all of the books on Franklin Roosevelt or Babe Ruth. Floating like a butterfly, Randy Kryn 21:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Although i am ok with either retaining individual WP articles for each of the Ali biographies or merging all of them into a single WP article, if i am asked to pick between the two options, i will choose to Keep the individual WP articles for each of the books. Ideally, i would like to see a detailed synopsis for each book. Something along the lines of this (as yet incomplete) synopsis: India as a Secular State. Or Nehru A Contemporary's Estimate Soham321 (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Publishers Weekly

From what i am able to understand, the allegation is that publishers weekly is a pay-for-review publication (see the tag that has been placed on the main article ) which is why it is being deemed unacceptable to cite as a reference. My view is that even if they follow a pay-for-review system, Publishers Weekly would have given a poor review if the book was poor, otherwise they would not have been deemed a respectable publication as seems to be the case (see Publishers Weekly). Once notability of the book has been established, it should be permissible to use the Publishers Weekly review of the book as a reference. Soham321 (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If it is pay-for-review then it is by definition not independent: they're taking money from the publishers etc. Please see WP:RS and WP:V. - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

can i get some evidence of the fact that they are pay-for-review? So far i have only heard allegations. Secondly, i am aware of certain reputed academic journals which charge money if one wishes to publish one's research paper in them and make the work publicly available. See Article processing charge. Even if Publishers Weekly charges money from the publisher for the review, which it then makes publicly available, i don't believe it automatically disqualifies it as a reliable source. Soham321 (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Publisher's Weekly, Booklist, and Kirkus are review machines, that are basically handed books by big publishers, and then those books are reviewed as preface to broader awareness in the publishing/review industry (see this Slate article). They are not indicators of WP:NB per Sitush, though can be used as reliable sources. See my proposal in the above section, that should be a better solution. Sadads (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Sadads about the fact that Publisher's Weekly can be used as a reliable source. Soham321 (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging other editors

I am pinging other editors who have edited Ali related articles, and who have not yet participated in this discussion, with a request to them to give their feedback. (If an editor has done editing on multiple articles, he or she is only being pinged once. Also, to save myself some trouble, i am only pinging people who have done editing on the Ali articles in 2016 and 2015. I am *not* pinging any IP editor, and also not pinging any blocked editor.)

1. The following editors have done editing on the main article of this page: Randy Kryn, Zackmann08, PRehse

2. The following editors have done editing on the main article of Facing Ali: JLOPO

3. The following editors have done editing on Twelve Rounds to Glory: Stevietheman, Fadesga, Yankees10, Aristophanes68, Coolabahapple

4. The following editors have done editing on The Soul of a Butterfly: See above

5. The following editors have done editing on Muhammad Ali: His Life and Times: See above

6. The following editors have done editing on The Greatest: My Own Story: Bgwhite,GrahamHardy, Neptune's Trident, TahitiBlue

7. The following editors have done editing on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Muhammad_Ali : Gareth E. Kegg, Blakegripling ph,ClassicOnAStick Soham321 (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that as it appears a major structural change is suggested, that an RfC be started for it where it clearly states what the issue is and possible solutions, then anyone in the wiki community can comment and !vote, perhaps leading to some kind of consensus. I myself don't see an issue with an article for each biography given they meet WP:GNG. But if an individual article on a biography looks shaky, I would prefer to see AfD, with discussion, rather than a PROD, which is supposed to be for obvious/noncontroversial cases. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC on this issue would be a good idea. Soham321 (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

An RFC might be overdoing it, this page seems to be a Keeper and, with a little more work and references, should be fine. Randy Kryn 22:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that having multiple individual articles for biographical works (instead of having a summary of all of them in one article) was being questioned. Of course, anyone can start an RfC, even if many of us think we can predict the outcome. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the deletion tag on the main article has been removed. No need for any RfC now. Soham321 (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• If proding editor still has concerns about this article (or any other editor), take it to afd (btw i don't believe that all publishers weekly reviews should be discounted from notability over concerns about pay reviews, they have been reviewing books for over 140 years and may have only been receiving publisher/author(?) payments in recent years). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)