Talk:The Farm (Bromfield novel)

Untitled

This work has been marked for deletion. Given that the article was created from a red link on the Louis Bromfield page, it seemed like a fairly reasonable thought that it was significant. The article discusses how _The Farm_ shows the first expression of Bromfield's agrarian thought, which led to his return to Ohio and development of Malabar Farms, now an Ohio State Park. Also, Bromfield's thought has been linked to Wendell Berry's. But since I didn't have a specific citation, I did not include that. What else, pray tell, constitutes significance? If we delete things that haven't been written about sufficiently, then aren't we just perpetuating a bias? 216.185.233.216 (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't logged in when I posted that last. Tunemyheart (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, the bias we are perpetuating is Wikipedia policies about the notability of books. You can read about it at WP:NBOOKS. In order to keep this, please find sources (like reviews, other books / publications that cite this one, or awards). There needs to be some evidence that it is a significant books based on sources, not just what you say it is. Once you find them, you can remove the template on the page. Thanks, 16:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC) (forgot sig I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC))

I appreciate that you don't want to have millions of entries on millions of obscure books, but who gets to decide when something is worthwhile? I've addressed your concern--actually, I'd argue that it had already been addressed in the original--but then who is David Anderson, my authority? He writes for Gale Group. Big deal. I write for Gale Group. He's an American Lit professor. Same here. He (presumably) holds a Ph.D. Ditto. He probably publishes in scholarly journals. Me too. His statement is an opinion. My statements were clearly verifiable.

I guess this is my point. You complain that my article is deficient because it is "just what you say it is." Yet I'm guessing that you'll concede that I've met the requirement by citing a source that is "just what HE says it is." I'm not sure what the difference is.

It is not my intention to be difficult, but I find it hard to not be somewhat offended, with all the mediocrity that still lurks on Wikipedia, when an article that follows an existing link on a lengthy page is deemed insignificant. In my experience, ANY work by an author of some renown, which Bromfield certainly is, warrants at least brief coverage. For example, I notice that there's an entry on Nathaniel Hawthorne's _Fanshawe_, a book of the author's youth, which he later renounced. Significant? Not really, unless you're a grad student desperate for a dissertation topic, but it remains and should remain.

Okay--I'm done pontificating now. Whether you agree or not is not all that important, but thanks for reading.Tunemyheart (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not tried to be offensive. I am just informing you of the relevant policies. And no, we don't accept articles just because A user says it is an important article. We need sources to verify such claims that the information is not just verifiable, but also (in this case) notable as a book. Also, whatever else is on Wikipedia sets no precedent for this article, so you cannot support this article with the fact that other articles exist. You were able to find one source that appears to be from a reference guide for American literature. In my opinion, this doesn't qualify. I agree that the author is notable, but that doesn't make all of his books individually notable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)