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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Generalrelative (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Race Life of the Aryan Peoples[edit]

Race Life of the Aryan Peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The subject of this article, a 1907 book, does not seem to be notable per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. None of the current citations are secondary sources discussing the book, and a search on Google Scholar yielded none. A search on Jstor yielded a few passing mentions ([1], [2], [3] and [4]) but nothing like the substantial coverage required for notability. Much of the current article appears to be a content fork for discussion of the historical race concept "Aryan race". And about a third is just a long quote from the book. Our article about the author, Joseph Widney, is decent enough, but only one sentence is written about this book there. I would suggest that anything usable here be merged into that article. The only reason I haven't WP:BOLDly performed the merge is that this article (somewhat surprisingly) has a relatively high viewership, so I'd like to get a solid consensus from the community on the matter. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. I see how this is going and do not want to waste the community's time. Thanks to those who have participated. Generalrelative (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This book was the subject of critical reviews in The Arena (ProQuest 124468843), The Athenaeum (ProQuest 8904058), The Spectator (ProQuest 1295475818), The Academy (ProQuest 1298670327), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (doi:10.1177/000271620803100122), and more. This meets WP:NBOOK #1 and WP:GNG. DanCherek (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Honest question: Is there really no exception when the reviews are all well over 100 years old? It seems very odd to me that these reviews from 1907-1908 would be seen as establishing notability. Generalrelative (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NTEMP is the relevant guideline. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, AleatoryPonderings. If that's the determination then I'll of course accept it. But I do wonder if 114-year-old book reviews are really what the community had in mind when composing that guideline. 04:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  My interpretation of the guidelines is that the amount of contemporary coverage that this book received indicates that it can and should have an encyclopedic article. If I was actually rewriting the article (which I unfortunately don't have the time to do, though I hope these sources are helpful to whomever wants to take up the task), I would incorporate more recent sources – which do exist – in addition to the ones above. I'm not particularly surprised that newer sources seem to be less in-depth than the contemporary ones. There wouldn't really be a reason for literary journals to publish a full-length review of a 100+ year old book as if it was just published; instead, it makes sense that discussion of the book is interwoven with other analyses. DanCherek (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your perspective, DanCherek. I guess we'll see what others have to say, and if the result is "keep" I'll try to make some of those improvements when I have time. Generalrelative (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, mulitple reviews as listed by DanCherek above. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think I got most of the content fork? What a mess. As far as the book reviews, I'd venture a guess, though I don't have any statistical data to check my hunch, that book reviews are an even stronger indicator of notability the further back in time you go. Fewer reviewing journals, and also probably selection bias of our current databases. -- asilvering (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the independent reviews establish notability. Mccapra (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2022 (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.