Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 People Who Are Screwing Up America


 * 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. per WP:SNOW — Jake   Wartenberg  17:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

100 People Who Are Screwing Up America

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:NOTABLE and is a highly inflammatory topic. User:Nezzadar (speak) 01:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: non notable. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How about a reason why it's non-notable?
 * WP:NB 1) first dot point. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but prune hard with a weed whacker. The book itself has some notability, but the article on it is just being used as an anti-liberal coatrack. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Widely discussed book. Gamaliel (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep But it could be trimmed down. It is a somewhat notable book. --Pstanton (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The reception and response sections are what indicate notability. --Cedderstk 10:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It may be a crappy book, but it got sufficient coverage to be notable.  Its more of a joke than inflammatory, in my view.--Milowent (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: This never should have been made an AfD. See:       . gNews:  --Odie5533 (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Widely covered/discussed in various media, clearly meets the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as blatant and persistent attack coatrack. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be subject of any current edit wars or controversy on the talk page, and seems fairly NPOV to me as an outsider. If it's really a problem, why not request protection? --Cedderstk 18:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just discovered this deletion nomination when researching the controversy over claims of a quote from Rush Limbaugh that are attributed to another book by a diferrent author. Wikiquotes may have had the quote with another similar book (101 people who are really screwing America: (and Bernard Goldberg is only #73)) as reference but because the book does not say where the information comes from (lack of sourcing) it was removed. I have no opinion to keep or delete but thought this was interesting timing if nothing else.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep because it's a handy guide to conservative criticism of "lefty" celebrities. The list of 100 also inspired Wikipedians to work hard on creating dozens of new articles to turn the red links blue. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs to be rewritten. But despite the overtly political overtones of the book's contents, the subject appears to be notable enough for inclusion on this site. Warrah (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Grudging keep: I think this book has more notable because it acts as a Rorschach test (and/or red-rag-to-a-bull) for readers'/reviewers' views than for any literary value or profound insight -- which means that achieving NPOV will be problematical. However, the book clearly has generated significant third party coverage, so the attempt should be made -- and WP:DUE weight needs to be given to these sources (and the complete list should probably be replaced by a simple EL to a reproduction of it). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant 3rd party coverage.--Knulclunk (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability has been established through coverage in reliable sources. The article might need to be improved (it's worth asking whether the actual list belongs in the article, for instance), but that's not a reason for deletion. Robofish (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE. Topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.