The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
... that according to the book To Kill a Democracy, when democracies destroy their social foundations, they lay the foundations for despotism? Source: It shows that when democracies rack and ruin their social foundations, they don't just kill off the spirit and substance of democracy. They lay the foundations for despotism Oxford University press Description
Created by Venkat TL (talk). Self-nominated at 21:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC).
Article is a stub and is not eligible for WP:DYK. It is literally three sentences long with one of those sentences being guilty of WP:PUFF. Ktin (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't be too hasty to turn this away; it seems like there may be the available sourcing to turn this into a proper article, and the nominator has indicated their willingness to work on it. Let's give them some time. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 04:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, please do not close this. I will expand this in the coming days. Ktin, that puff was part of the Wiki bio of the author and has now been copy edited.Venkat TL (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
This will need a new reviewer whenever the nominator signals that they are ready for a second review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 19:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Overall: Thank you, Venkat TL for this interesting article. It is was expanded until 30 December, and is now long enough, and it fulfils the DYK requirements. I have removed the stub tag. Good to go. (Note: the status of this review was adjusted from a tick to "?" on 4 January in response to comment below). Storye book (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC) Storye book (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! I have a couple issues with this nomination that'd need to be cleared up before this can move forward.
The "content" section seems to treat the book as fact (see Why Marx Was Right for an example of how this can be avoided) instead of as the opinion of one or two authors. Given that the section is the vast majority of the book, I don't think we can say the article is neutral just yet.
Also, I don't think the hook is the best. Any non-fiction political book can argue any point, and I don't think this take is particularly out of the ordinary. Is there a more interesting hook to be had? Maybe creating a "reception" section with the secondary sourcing can help.
This one isn't technically a DYK requirement, but I don't see how we can say that the article is long enough if the only substantive content is just plot summary. I'll ping Gatoclass here, because we just had a discussion about this a couple days ago, but the only non-synopsis thing I know about this book from reading the article is a brief summary of the author's qualifications. I'm not saying that every article about a long-form piece of media has to have 1500 prose characters that aren't just plot, but this article doesn't offer up much besides that at all; in other words, you wouldn't know that this book was even notable unless you looked at the sourcing. By my count, that's a stub in all but name.
I don't think this is super daunting; we're almost there, and you've done great work so far—I'd love to see this on DYK, it's fascinating. Thanks for your time! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, on second thoughts I agree with the above comments by Theleekycauldron. I have adjusted the status of my review above, as I always do in line with the current situation. My angle on this now, is that the Content section needs to make clear in every paragraph that statements are the opinion of the writers of the book, that the writers said it, etc. Also I agree that there should be a Reception section which (ideally) includes some quoted views on the quality of the book. I should add that we are not in a position to criticise our nominator here, because they have not yet told us that they have finished expanding the article, so maybe this problem is my own fault for doing the review before they had completed the task. Storye book (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Update. @Venkat TL: The article is no longer tagged, so this nomination is no longer on hold.
The article has now been lengthened to the extent that the Content section is no longer the major section, which would balance the article, except that the Content section still does not state in every paragraph that the book's argument is the writing and opinion of the author. Until it is made clear that the whole of the content is the opinion of the author, this nomination cannot pass DYK. So please resolve that? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Venkat TL The Content section has now been adjusted to reflect that fact that the book contents are the author's opinion. Good to go. Storye book (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Storye book and theleekycauldron for your guidance and detailed comments. Venkat TL (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Article is a stub and is not eligible for WP:DYK. It is literally three sentences long with one of those sentences being guilty of WP:PUFF. Ktin (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't be too hasty to turn this away; it seems like there may be the available sourcing to turn this into a proper article, and the nominator has indicated their willingness to work on it. Let's give them some time. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 04:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
This will need a new reviewer whenever the nominator signals that they are ready for a second review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 19:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Venkat TL for this interesting article. It is was expanded until 30 December, and is now long enough, and it fulfils the DYK requirements. I have removed the stub tag. Good to go. (Note: the status of this review was adjusted from a tick to "?" on 4 January in response to comment below). Storye book (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC) Storye book (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Venkat TL The Content section has now been adjusted to reflect that fact that the book contents are the author's opinion. Good to go. Storye book (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)