Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad for democracy


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad for democracy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Consists solely of very brief book blurb and excerpts from reviews. Essentially all of the content is taken from non-free sources, and is either quoted directly from the author of the book, or from book reviews on Amazon. Wikipedia is not a place to dump Amazon book listings. The Anome (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Keep. Being badly formatted and disorganized from a new user is not an excuse to delete an article mentioned in at least .  Only one link is generally thorough enough but there's some news out there and that's only a few minutes of research. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep since this book seems to be plenty notable. I have removed two blurbs from the article and added two articles (one mentioned above) and an editorial by the author. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The first step would be to try to establish an article on the author, since earlier books by the author seem to be significant. . The discussions mentioned are either interviews with the author or columns by the author. I have so far not found any additional reviews. The phrase has been used a lot, in various similar contexts, by many others. WorldCat shows 225 libraries so far, which is sufficient to establish the book as helping the authors notability, but borderline for a book in the absence of third party reviews.  DGG (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see your point. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems notable enough per Drmies' links... also we shouldn't be deleting articles that are so new before they have had time to improve. Concur that the author should have an article too. Gigs (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks notable, containing several secondary sources, sure, I agree that we need an article on the author, but there is no reason this article can't remain here, SpitfireTally-ho! 05:21, 27 March 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.