Talk:Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box

Notability marginal but present
During WP:AFC review, there was some difference of opinion over the notability of this book. I see it as "barely" making it due to multiple, independent third-party book reviews from reliable sources.

After discarding obviously-likely-unreliable sources, here were the remaining book reviews:
 * Internation Business Times Review
 * Daily KOS Review
 * Washington Examiner Review
 * The Cincinnati Herald Review
 * The Guardian Express Review

There was also an interview, but interviews tend to be promotional rather than reliable:
 * Newsmax Interview

These reviews may prove useful to someone who wants to expand the article. However, I am asking all editors to keep the tone neutral and avoid anything that looks like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulls_Bears_and_the_Ballot_Box&diff=prev&oldid=550411336 this stuff] that I already deleted. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Guardian Express link shows that the paper's name is the Guardian Liberty Voice. Do you mean GE in that it's part of the UK's Guardian? Big difference there, I think. In any case, the book isn't reviewed in the piece. It's referenced, but not actually reviewed. The focus of the piece is about US Presidents and the book is mentioned in a footnote/reference. Now when it comes to the Daily Kos review, that doesn't appear to be posted by a staff member or one of the more notable contributors, but a post by one of the site's many users. They aren't even on their list of most recommended users. The CH one would be usable, but it comes up as a dead link for me. I'll see about the others, but I know that many of them are either not actually about the book itself as a predominant focus or would be considered unreliable in many formats. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I found the CH review... which isn't actually much of a review at all. It's more of a general bio about the book's authors. It's not entirely what I'd consider to be a review, as there's really no talk about the book itself other than saying it exists. It's in-depth enough to where it could count towards notability, but it's more about the authors. One problem I'm running into with the reviews I am finding is that most of them sort of just go over the book's findings and don't really talk about the book as far as opinions go. I'm having to really paraphrase a lot to get a good reception section going. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I decided not to list it for deletion, on the basis of the article in US News.  DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bulls Bears and the Ballot Box. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201180247/http://cincinnatiherald.our-hometown.com/news/2012-07-14/News/Bulls_Bears_and_the_Ballot_Box.html to http://cincinnatiherald.our-hometown.com/news/2012-07-14/News/Bulls_Bears_and_the_Ballot_Box.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)