This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacementWikipedia:WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacementTemplate:WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacementAdoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement
I have read this book. It's a good book. There might even be some support out there for it being one of the better books of its genre, although citing to its Amazon page is insufficient support for that claim.
However, this article seems to be about 1/3 advertisement for the book and 2/3 a description of the Jurgens case itself.
If this is supposed to be an article about the Jurgens case, then it should focus on the case and the book is secondary (mentioned at the end or something).
If indeed the book is supposed to be the subject of the article, I expect to see how the book won a bunch of awards, or changed the face of the law or social perception of child abuse, or established a new literary genre like In Cold Blood, that sort of thing.
This article in its current form fails to do justice to either the case itself or to the book. TheBlinkster (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBlinkster: I went ahead, separated the book again, removed uncited content, and this time cited multiple book reviews. As per Wikipedia:Notability (books) (as well as being WP:GNG)
"The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews."
... this means it can have its own article. I don't see any other talk page discussion about this.
As the reviews exist, the article should remain separate as is, and the way to develop it is to focus on the book reviews and what they say: let the book reviews be a guide on how the article is written.
Believe it or not, the merger proposal Talk:Murder_of_Dennis_Jurgens#Merger_proposal in a way makes sense as the book article shouldn't duplicate the article on the murder itself. Therefore what I have now is a listing of what the three reviews have to say of the book.
