538:
article, I thought "gee, this could be perceived as antisemitic", so I structured the article to simply capture the authors thesis in his own words (he _is_ the secondary source, by the way, the primary sources are the
Hollywood figures that he quotes directly). Perversely, that decision to avoid using my own words (and risking the accusation that I put my own bias into the article) is being used to support deletion of the article (using the logic that "the article is just a bunch of quotes from the book"). Sigh. Can we agree that the book and movie are notable? That the subject is of broad and longstanding interest? If so, can we focus on improving the article, rather than just deleting it? --
579:- this is a book published by a respectable press. But it is the work of a film-critic (whose argument is that the men who made Hollywood had fathers who were failures, and who wanted desperately to buy into the American dream and be treated as Americans and not Jews, and who would be seen as contributing tsomething of value to their new home). My problem with this article is that ti does read like a high school book report. I'd like to see more context, how the book as been reviewed or used by scholars in different fields, and so on.
626:- Having seen the removal of most of the book excerpts, and seeing the possible addition of scholarly criticism, I'm starting to re-consider my nomination...but I will continue to watch this AfD and see where the conversation leads. To Ben Kidwell: I didn't nominate it because it was poorly written, I nominated it because as it was written when I looked at it, it failed the guidelines that I quoted. It still only sources itself and has no third-party sources, which is a continued major issue.
699:
687:
607:
I understand. It is a shame that
Knowledge (XXG), however much it has grown, still lacks the editors to help out with something like this. perhaps we need a new stub template leaving room for specific suggestions about what further help we need (or maybe that can be the outcome of a rejected RfD).
537:
The book is an excellent history book, on a topic (the early years of
Hollywood) that is of widespread interest to Americans, in fact, to much of the world. The book was so well accepted, it was turned into a documentary movied that aired on A&E, which is where I first saw it. As I created the
519:
Please remember that we do not delete articles because they are poorly written; we delete articles because the topic is non-notable. This book is a winner of the Los
Angeles Times book award for history and was the basis for a television documentary. I believe this book easily meets the notability
693:
365:
policy, but I just read it, and it says "plot summaries are okay for works of fiction" but it appears to be silent on non-fiction books. Im willing to admit that _this_ article was poorly written, and too quote-heavy (which I deliberately did to remove any hint of bias due to editor's own
851:
The book's apparently large readership and the reviews about it make it notable, as per the comments above. The article is missing descriptions of the book's critical reception, any controversies it caused and overall influence, which might blunt the charges of racism in the article.
696:
160:
576:
769:
This is a significant and reasonably influential book about the history of the
Hollywood film industry. It's frequently mentioned in popular and scholarly works about Hollywood. (300+ GScholar hits <Gabler+"Empire of their own":
592:
I agree that the article could be made much, much better. I am not the editor to do that: I am not a historian, nor an expert on
Hollywood. I was hoping to just jump-start the article and let other editors take it from there.
94:
89:
98:
314:. P.S.: especially with books, one of the ways to judge notability is if they are reviewed or not and who does the reviews. In fact, that is the primary area to establish notability with printed material. Hope this helps.
81:
357:: Hippocrite: can you help me understand the "plot summary" policy? The reason I put a "chapter by chapter" description in this article is because I saw that in a couple of other non-fiction book articles, such as
154:
645:
Book is clearly notable. Any claimed issues with the presentation and description in the article can be dealt with by standard editorial means. Whether anyone likes the content of the book is also irrelevant.
85:
683:, almost all of which are primarily about the book, or the book in combination with the film. just looking at some of the major reviews, there are full books reviews in the NYTimes
77:
69:
681:
291:- Could you please provide links to the actual references and not simply to their wiki pages? This would allow us to see whether they are simply reviews or something more indepth.
121:
387:
175:
142:
608:
It would be great if a sociologist or historian with appropriate knowlege could read this article and fill in the gaps. Great, but I am not holding my breath ...
912:
895:
878:
861:
843:
810:
780:
761:
742:
715:
672:
655:
635:
616:
602:
587:
564:
547:
529:
495:
481:
463:
449:
424:
404:
375:
349:
328:
304:
279:
226:
208:
63:
575:. I am not concerned about anti-Semitism here -I know of no notable figure who has accused Gabler of being an anti-Semite and the book got a decent review from
136:
689:
reported in the LA Times (and a full NYT review has almost always been considered by itself to make a book notable, as they are very selective) , TIME
312:
263:
454:
Ret. Prof: Thanks for proving my thesis that many of the "Deletion" recommendations are worthless because the editors did not read the article :-) --
132:
182:
684:
806:
737:
148:
17:
663:- the only assertion of notability for the book is that it was adapated into a (non-notable) documentary. Therefore not notable. -
59:
199:, this article reads like a high school book review, relying heavily on plot summary and "Author said this" type sentences.
340:
I've removed the rewrite of the book (the "Chapters" section) of the article. No opinion on keep or delete at this time.
927:
36:
52:
891:
702:
520:
criteria for books. Problems with the writing style of an article are never an appropriate reason for deletion.
926:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
908:
668:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
874:
802:
731:
794:
613:
584:
402:
222:
757:
726:
525:
366:
paraphrases), but what is the general rule on chapter-by-chapter descriptions of non-fiction books? --
292:
196:
887:
362:
192:
904:
857:
776:
664:
598:
543:
491:
459:
437:
371:
345:
316:
267:
168:
690:
870:
798:
560:
477:
420:
651:
609:
580:
395:
251:
247:
218:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
821:
753:
631:
521:
358:
300:
204:
903:
Legitimate well researched publication and article, although the Title is a little shrill--
255:
555:
Sounds more than a little racist but it easily meets the notability criteria for books.
853:
772:
594:
539:
487:
455:
367:
341:
259:
235:
711:
556:
486:
No problem. Anyone with a photo of Ghandi on their home page is all right by me. --
473:
416:
239:
472:
I have not read the book but, I have read the article...A very very unhappy Keep -
647:
115:
435:
The title is the actual name of the book. I think you may have misread? Thanks
886:
highly notable book, article can be easily improved and given enough references.
627:
296:
200:
265:. By the way, nice job to the author of the article, very nice job. Thanks
706:
311:
I did as shown above under , but no problem here they are again,
920:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
243:
790:
to have a page dedicated to a book does not mean it is right.
701:, and even a prepublication article on the book in the NYTimes
234:– Based on the following write ups in such publications as the
820:
As above, plenty of reviews for this, make it notable.
680:
The notability of it is shown by the 250 GNews items,
111:
107:
103:
78:
An Empire Of Their Own: How the Jews
Invented Hollywood
70:
An Empire Of Their Own: How the Jews
Invented Hollywood
167:
181:
869:terribly written article, but it's a notable book.
752:CLearly notable. No good reason to delete given.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
930:). No further edits should be made to this page.
388:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
725:Numerous book reviews indicate notability. —
8:
415:Title sounds racist. Rewrite from a NPOV -
382:
295:is not a valid reason to keep a WP page.
386:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
262:and on and on and on as shown here
24:
1:
913:13:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
896:05:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
879:18:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
862:16:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
844:11:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
811:02:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
781:21:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
762:20:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
743:20:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
716:05:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
673:23:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
656:21:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
636:20:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
617:17:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
603:20:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
588:20:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
565:20:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
548:20:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
530:19:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
496:20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
482:20:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
464:20:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
450:19:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
425:19:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
405:19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
376:16:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
350:19:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
329:19:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
305:19:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
280:19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
227:19:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
209:19:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
64:19:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
947:
361:. I was not aware of the
686:--which gave it an award
553:A very very unhappy Keep:
923:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
692:, the Washinton Post
53:Backslash Forwardslash
695:, the Jerusalem Post
577:the New York Times
44:The result was
814:
797:comment added by
407:
391:
252:Chicago Sun-Times
248:Los Angeles Times
938:
925:
840:
837:
834:
831:
828:
825:
813:
791:
741:
448:
398:
392:
359:God is Not Great
327:
278:
186:
185:
171:
119:
101:
34:
946:
945:
941:
940:
939:
937:
936:
935:
934:
928:deletion review
921:
888:Mercurywoodrose
838:
835:
832:
829:
826:
823:
792:
729:
698:, the LA times
436:
396:
315:
266:
256:Washington Post
128:
92:
76:
73:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
944:
942:
933:
932:
916:
915:
905:Jemesouviens32
898:
881:
864:
846:
815:
784:
783:
764:
746:
745:
719:
718:
675:
665:DustFormsWords
658:
640:
639:
638:
621:
620:
619:
567:
550:
532:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
409:
408:
380:
379:
378:
334:
333:
332:
331:
308:
307:
283:
282:
260:Jerusalem Post
236:New York Times
229:
217:as nominated.
189:
188:
125:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
943:
931:
929:
924:
918:
917:
914:
910:
906:
902:
899:
897:
893:
889:
885:
882:
880:
876:
872:
871:Bali ultimate
868:
865:
863:
859:
855:
850:
847:
845:
842:
841:
819:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
799:Olivemountain
796:
789:
786:
785:
782:
778:
774:
768:
765:
763:
759:
755:
751:
748:
747:
744:
739:
736:
733:
728:
727:Malik Shabazz
724:
721:
720:
717:
713:
709:
708:
703:
700:
697:
694:
691:
688:
685:
682:
679:
676:
674:
670:
666:
662:
659:
657:
653:
649:
644:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
622:
618:
615:
611:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
591:
590:
589:
586:
582:
578:
574:
572:
568:
566:
562:
558:
554:
551:
549:
545:
541:
536:
533:
531:
527:
523:
518:
515:
514:
497:
493:
489:
485:
484:
483:
479:
475:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
461:
457:
453:
452:
451:
447:
446:
443:
440:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
422:
418:
414:
406:
403:
400:
399:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
364:
360:
356:
353:
352:
351:
347:
343:
339:
336:
335:
330:
326:
325:
322:
319:
313:
310:
309:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
287:
286:
285:
284:
281:
277:
276:
273:
270:
264:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
240:Boston Herald
237:
233:
230:
228:
224:
220:
216:
213:
212:
211:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
922:
919:
900:
883:
866:
848:
822:
817:
787:
766:
749:
734:
722:
705:
677:
660:
642:
623:
610:Slrubenstein
581:Slrubenstein
570:
569:
552:
534:
516:
444:
441:
438:
412:
411:
410:
397:Juliancolton
394:
383:
354:
337:
323:
320:
317:
288:
274:
271:
268:
231:
214:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
55:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
793:—Preceding
522:Ben Kidwell
293:WP:ITEXISTS
197:WP:NOTPAPER
155:free images
363:WP:PLOTSUM
193:WP:NOTPLOT
854:AFriedman
773:Arxiloxos
595:Noleander
540:Noleander
488:Noleander
456:Noleander
368:Noleander
342:Hipocrite
807:contribs
795:unsigned
738:contribs
557:Ret.Prof
474:Ret.Prof
417:Ret.Prof
355:Question
122:View log
648:JoshuaZ
624:Comment
413:Delete:
338:Comment
289:Comment
191:As per
161:WP refs
149:scholar
95:protect
90:history
754:Paul B
661:Delete
628:Frmatt
442:hoesss
321:hoesss
297:Frmatt
272:hoesss
219:Crafty
215:Delete
201:Frmatt
133:Google
99:delete
839:Focus
767:Keep.
712:talk
176:JSTOR
137:books
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
909:talk
901:Keep
892:talk
884:Keep
875:talk
867:Keep
858:talk
849:Keep
818:Keep
803:talk
788:keep
777:talk
771:) --
758:talk
750:keep
732:talk
723:Keep
704:.
678:Keep
669:talk
652:talk
643:keep
632:talk
614:Talk
599:talk
585:Talk
573:keep
571:weak
561:talk
544:talk
535:Keep
526:talk
517:Keep
492:talk
478:talk
460:talk
421:talk
393:-- –
384:Note
372:talk
346:talk
301:talk
244:Time
232:Keep
223:talk
205:talk
195:and
169:FENS
143:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
60:talk
46:keep
770:-->
707:DGG
612:|
583:|
183:TWL
120:– (
911:)
894:)
877:)
860:)
852:--
809:)
805:•
779:)
760:)
714:)
671:)
654:)
634:)
601:)
593:--
563:)
546:)
528:)
494:)
480:)
462:)
423:)
401:|
390:.
374:)
348:)
303:)
258:–
254:–
250:–
246:–
242:–
238:–
225:)
207:)
163:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
62:)
48:.
907:(
890:(
873:(
856:(
836:m
833:a
830:e
827:r
824:D
801:(
775:(
756:(
740:)
735:·
730:(
710:(
667:(
650:(
630:(
597:(
559:(
542:(
524:(
490:(
476:(
458:(
445:S
439:S
419:(
370:(
344:(
324:S
318:S
299:(
275:S
269:S
221:(
203:(
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
118:)
80:(
58:(
56:/
50:\
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.