Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God's Playground: Volume I - Chapter Synopsis

:{{la|God's Playground: Volume I - Chapter Synopsis}} ([{{fullurl:God's Playground: Volume I - Chapter Synopsis|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God's Playground: Volume I - Chapter Synopsis}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Contested prod. Although this may be notable to the article author, a chapter synopsis written by someone other than one of the authors of the book itself probably violates WP:OR. CultureDrone (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

:: I would now like to consider removing the deletion notice from this article as I feel the conversation has reached its conclusion i.e. no new comments have been made recently. I feel that, although there are some suggested deletions, these do not outweigh the keeps. If everyone had voted to delete then I would be OK with it but this has not been the case. Ivankinsman (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Original research, essay. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment see also discussion related to removal of the synopsis from the original article: Talk:God's Playground — Preceding unsigned comment added by CultureDrone (talk • contribs)
• Delete. A synopsis of a history book is simply a retelling of the history - which belongs in articles about Poland's history, not in an article about a book about Poland's history. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Zetawoof --  Darth Mike  _{(Talk • Contribs)} 20:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• If you look at the main article page of God's Playground, it simply gives a very short summary of the book - where the author got its title from - and the main chapter headings. From my perspective, this gives me no idea at all about what the book describes or Norman Davies' own unique perspective on Polish history. I have done a lot of editing work - primarily on authors and their novels (see my profile page) - and feel that this book is no different to any of others I have worked on in terms of having a main contents section i.e. describing the book's main themes. Ivankinsman (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• A more detailed explanation of the author's thesis in the book would not be out of place in God's Playground. This chapter-by-chapter summary is not that explanation, though - it's way too expansive to glean any information from. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about this comment. If, for example, you are someone interested in finding out about Sobieski, a very famous Polish King, then you could go straight to the chapter on Sobieski to get a quick overview of his reign. I am not doing this so much that you have to read through the whole main article from start to finish! It would be better to read the book itself. Ivankinsman (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• If I were interested in Sobieski, the first place I would look would be the article on John III Sobieski, not an article about a book which mentions him. Much more direct, that way. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to God's Playground. Useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• I have also sent an e-mail to Professor Norman Davies (copy below) asking for his comments on this matter: Ivankinsman (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Professor Davies,

I am currently writing a chapter by chapter synopsis of God's Playground, Vol. I on Wikipedia.

There is a move afoot to have this article deleted, it being cited that a chapter synopsis can only be writtten by the author himself. I was wondering if you could give your input on this matter. The article to date can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Playground:_Volume_I_-_Chapter_Synopsis

I am writing this article as I feel it would be of general interest to academic students and others interested in the history of Poland.

Yours sincerely,

Ivan Kinsman

• Delete - with very strong advice to Polish editors to incorporate the information into articles about Polish history. No one argues that information is not useful; the problem is that it is in a completely wrong place. I think Zetawoof said it best. Renata (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

: Again, I would like to discuss this. When you say 'it is in a completely wrong place' how can this be? The article contains information from God's Playground and its chapter synopses are directly related to the book. As a courtesy, I also took it off the main article page and made it as a link from this so as not to distract those readers who don't want to view it. Ivankinsman (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

::See, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Keep that in mind. It is not a phonebook, how-to guide, cliff notes, or many other things. Think about any kind of traditional printed encyclopedia. Many of us growing up had a full shelve of these heavy volumes (Britannica, Encarta, etc.) Image they would have an article about God's Playground. What would it be like?

::Wikipedia is not a place for "chapter-by-chapter recitation." Yes, the summary is relevant to the book, but that's not the kind of information Wikipedia should provide. The article should be written from a real-world perspective (please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) for examples). This is especially true in this case as there is no plot per se, just a study of history. Renata (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Renata, Wikipedia is not paper. We have rooms of detailed articles about a book. Of course, this article has some MoS issues, and badly needs inline citations, but is salvageable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Wikipedia is also not a plot summary. The article is very much salvageable if it is incorporated into history of Poland & similar articles, but not as stand-alone article or a section in God's Playground. Renata (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::What's wrong with God's Playground? We got already a bunch of lenghty articles in English Wikipedia about badly written books by controversial writers such as Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz by Jan T. Gross, which also pertain to Poland's history, but are based mostly on communist propaganda, and by which other historical articles as History of the Jews in Poland are being currently littered throughout Wikipedia. This one is properly referenced and as a separate volume deserves a separate article. Longer the better when dealing with the content. At least it doesn't include reviews, reviews of reviews and blurbs of the type you read it breathlessly. I don't mind if someone uses its part as a source of reference in a historical article, but inserting it all into an already existing article is way over my head, and it would be an overkill. Some parts would overlap, some parts would be supplementary, in the end once a GA or FA article would be spoiled as happened with that Gross' incursion resulting in, these articles are now protected, and for the all wrong reasons. greg park avenue (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep and rename to God's Playground I: The Origins to 1795. The article is too large to be merged into anything else. BTW, it is also too impressive to be listed here. --Poeticbent talk 22:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep But rewrite -- the article is waaaaaaaaay too long! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:*65kb. Still under 100kb, so it looks good to me.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

:: OK, a suggestion here could be to create a seperate article page for the second section starting from II. The Life and Death of the Polish-Lithuanian Republic (1569-1795). So, a seperate link for this would be required from the main article page of God's Playground, Vol.I. Would welcome feedback on this.Ivankinsman (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - professionally written article, should be rated GA, not deleted. greg park avenue (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- as impressively writeen as this is, Wikipedia is not for book reviews. Reyk _YO! 02:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete - Some of you people are completely ridiculous. The quality of an article does not override the notability of an article.  Asenine  09:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

: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.