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.
Keep per Arxiloxos' multiple book review finds. The American Spectator, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and Foreign Policy are all reliable sources (the others may be, too, but I don't know them) and the sources' articles go in depth about the book itself. Thus the book seems to satisfy criterion 1 of
WP:NBOOKS for notability. The article is sorely lacking in secondary sources, but given the multiple reviews, this is a surmountable problem per
WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable book and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --
Mark viking (
talk)
20:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep per the sources mentioned above and the book sources that I linked in the previous AfD. The article text iself is poor, but that is a matter of improvement not deletion.
AllyD (
talk)
20:53, 12 December 2013 (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.
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.
Keep per Arxiloxos' multiple book review finds. The American Spectator, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and Foreign Policy are all reliable sources (the others may be, too, but I don't know them) and the sources' articles go in depth about the book itself. Thus the book seems to satisfy criterion 1 of
WP:NBOOKS for notability. The article is sorely lacking in secondary sources, but given the multiple reviews, this is a surmountable problem per
WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable book and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --
Mark viking (
talk)
20:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep per the sources mentioned above and the book sources that I linked in the previous AfD. The article text iself is poor, but that is a matter of improvement not deletion.
AllyD (
talk)
20:53, 12 December 2013 (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.