Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Book ...of Perfectly Useless Information

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Book ...of Perfectly Useless Information

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

That Book ...of Perfectly Useless Information (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After reviewing Gale, Proquest, Newspapers.com, there is one review from the Associated Press, and no other sigcov. On newspapers.com, there are several hundred hits, but every single piece of sigcov is actually a reprint of the singular Associated Press review. There is nothing else, except some newspapers just repeating its facts. Redirect to Mitchell Symons? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: WP:NOTPROMOTION
Andh Namazi (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 03:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    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. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Berthel, Ron (2004-04-24). "Books answer questions you never thought to ask". The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2025-07-05. Retrieved 2025-07-05.

      The review notes: "Those who treasure trivia will find a bumper crop of the stuff in "That Book ... of Perfectly Useless Information" (Morrow, $14.95). Mitchell Symons has filled 372 pages with little-known -- perhaps for good reason -- facts about birds, insects, animals, the arts, words, and people. For example, who knew that the longest recorded flight of a chicken is 13 seconds? Or that no former U.S. president has died in May? And, one might wonder, which celebrities are allergic to garlic? Drew Barrymore and David Cassidy, to name two."

    2. "Bathroom reading". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 2004-11-21. Archived from the original on 2025-07-05. Retrieved 2025-07-05 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "If Seinfeld was a TV show about nothing, this is its printed equivalent: That Book of Perfectly Useless Information by Mitchell Symons (William Morrow, $14.95). Every page is crammed with the kind of lists that will kill spare time and brain cells at roughly the same rate. And yet it's so addictive you may end up reading it cover to cover. Examples: "People Who Have Been Pestered for Autographs in Toilets" (Joan Collins, Pierce Brosnan, below, and Julia Roberts); "Statistically the Most Landed-Upon Monopoly Squares" (Illinois Avenue, B&O Railroad, Tennessee Avenue); "The Age + They Would Have Reached in 2005 if They Were Still Alive" (Princess Di, 44; John Lennon, 65; Anne Frank, 76)."

    3. Kuch, Maureen (2005-01-09). "Useless trivia makes for interesting reading". The Vernon Morning Star. Archived from the original on 2025-07-05. Retrieved 2025-07-05 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Regular readers of this column know that I'm an incurable fan of trivia, and what better way to start new year than by announcing the publication of a new book — possibly the ultimate book — on trivia, called The Book of Perfectly Useless Information. British author Mitchell Symons has spent the last 20 years gathering trivia, much of which has been collected in numerous previous books, but he thinks of his latest, the nearly 400-page volume as a sort of director's cut, if you like, of my whole career." Many of you, I know, will snicker at the thought of anyone having a whole career devoted to uselessness. but useless or not, trivia is addictive, or at the very least, entertaining. Here are same excerpts from Symons* book:"

    4. Kesner, Julian (2004-12-12). "Reading Matter: That Book ...of Perfectly Useless Information". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2025-07-05. Retrieved 2025-07-05 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "That Book ...of Perfectly Useless Information by Mitchell Symons (William Morrow, $14.95). Symons, a former BBC TV director and Trivial Pursuit contributor, has culled random facts and figures from every corner of the globe. They include the humdrum and the hilarious. For example, did you know that Franklin Roosevelt, Albert Einstein and Saddam Hussein all married their cousins? Or that sardine flavored ice cream is the most requested patent in Europe? With its loosely themed sections and comical illustrations, the book is sure to find a dedicated readership in bathrooms everywhere."

    5. Article about a sequel:
      1. Berthel, Ron (2006-08-06). "Recent books offer some unusual but useful info: Quirky Reference". The Hammond Times. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2025-07-05. Retrieved 2025-07-05 – via Newspapers.com.

        The review about the sequel notes: "Mitchell Symons' chunky little 360-page book, a sequel to his "That Book ... of Perfectly Useless Information" (2004) is loaded with information that, useful or otherwise, is certainly addictive and entertaining."

    6. Less significant coverage:
      1. Schmeltzer, Scott (2006-07-27). "It's useless — but pretty entertaining — stuff". Albert Lea Tribune. Archived from the original on 2025-07-05. Retrieved 2025-07-05 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "Lately I have been reading a couple of books that have no point. The books are called "That Book of Perfectly Useless Information" and "This Book of More Perfectly Useless Information," and they are both authored by Mitchell Symons. The books are full of information that is not useless, but actually pretty entertaining. I found the books hard to put down and would like to share some of the little trivia that was uncovered in the pages."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow That Book ...of Perfectly Useless Information to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Cunard's sources? cc. PARAKANYAA, ReaderofthePack, and Piotrus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not a fan of this kind of AfD discussion. For one thing, the way that the sources are presented tends to overemphasise the importance of the contents of the sources. For example, source 1 above is a review of three trivia books which simply says essentially that they contain trivia. Source 6 is mostly a column containing examples of trivia from the book. Neither of these really can be considered significant in the normal use of the word. This isn't a majority !vote and it isn't up to me, but if it was then this kind of comment would only ever lead to !delete because searching through hundreds of years of newspapers to find examples of CHURN to !keep even books of trivia is clearly nonsense in my opinion. JMWt (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adding to Cunard's sources: https://www.scmp.com/article/571201/book-more-perfectly-useless-information. Kvinnen (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the rationale behind your comment but this particular collection of sources do not belong to the type of instances you might be referring to. The sources are as meaningful as the subject they are covering. The book in question is not a serious one, i.e. the books that generate deep, thought-provoking reviews, the sources presented imho match the general tone of the book in their coverage. The book seems to satisfy the sources and notability criteria requisite for its existence here. Kvinnen (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reply above is meant for @JMWt. Apologies if that is not made clear. Kvinnen (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are entitled to your opinion. JMWt (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, this isn't War and Peace, you won't get literary analysis of the themes of the book... It's a mass market trivia book. We've usually held book reviews in RS to show notability. If the aim of Wiki is to cover everything, that would pretty much include books like this. I agree it's not a monumental book that will shift the human experience to a better place, but it is what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not WP:CHURNALISM because they are very clearly not press releases, and none of the indications demonstrated in that essay are met here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Even the article now used as sourcing in the article seems to be the same as the AP one mentioned above (the link won't open, but the title appears to be the same). I can only pull up the AP article as discussed. I suppose a redirect to the author would be ok as well, not my first choice however. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several new book reviews have been presented above, should easily meet book notability. Also seeing coverage from Hong Kong and the USA, showing international notice, also helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a book of trivia with trivial mentions. The sources above are not in-depth or significant, and are essentially 'listicles'. Mentions are insufficient. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 15:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as person who started AfD) I wouldn't have started the AfD if I had managed to see the other sources. Enough for me to see a pass of NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm striking mine - I don't think that there's really enough to truly justify it being separate from the author's article (I think all of this would be best suited summarized in the author's article that he frequently made trivia books), but enough people I respect have argued for its retention so I'm striking my argument. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources listed above are enough for NBOOK. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/That_Book_...of_Perfectly_Useless_Information&oldid=1300595506"