Talk:Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk

Notable book per WP:NBOOK Criteria (1)

Notable book. Per WP:NBOOK Criteria number one (1). The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.

Namely, The New York Times, Buffalo News, The Washington Times, and Psychiatric Services.

Sagecandor (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Coat rack?

Qwirkle could you explain what parts of the article "may primarily relate to a different subject, or place undue weight on a particular aspect rather than the subject as a whole"? If you don't think the book is notable, take it to AfD. That no one created the article till now or that it was created in the wake of the Kavanaugh nomination doesn't have any bearing Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

All of it, right down to “and and the”. It’s promoting a marginal topic to push a political POV, and done by someone who is blocked from politics, and banned for Sockpuppetry. All three of the articles should be nuked, or rolled back into the author, but in the mean time we can warn the reader that this isn’t a bona fide article. Qwirkle (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The status of the author has no relation to article tags. How is this article "promoting" the topic? If there are POV issues, there are tags to label that. None of the points you make have any relation to the {{coat rack}} tag, and nor are maintenance tags meant to be "warnings" Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

By posting a political discretionary sanctions tag on my user page, you’ve already conceded this isn’t really about teenage alcoholism; why dig the hole you are in any deeper?Qwirkle (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the book has become a part of a political drama and has received a lot of coverage as a result of that; not sure what acknowledging that has to do with anything. The book received well enough reviews before that drama (at-least 4) to have a standalone article; and certainly the drama doesn't detract from notability Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The timing of that drama suggest that Wiki isn’t following the story, but helping create it, as often seems to occur around your proxy pal there. Coatrack is as coatrack does. Qwirkle (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

PS:Notability? Yeah, right. Qwirkle (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Number of print copies has nothing to do with notability.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

palpable nonsense. If it ain’t there, it can’t be read. If it can’t be read, it can’t affect readers. There are real exceptions to this general rule, of course, but this clearly isn’t one of them. Qwirkle (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you like...understand WP:N? Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Will you two stop edit warring over a daggum template? If you don't think it's notable, then take it to AfD. GMG^talk 14:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That is indeed almost verbatim what I said above: "If you don't think the book is notable, take it to AfD." :)Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Quirkle, I'm not seeing the political point of view the article is pushing. It's not even really about politics anyway, only marginally so if you include recent events. It's about a frat boy getting wasted every weekend in high school. Also, the number of copies does not have to do with notability, since there are plenty of sources on the book right now. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)