Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banana Republicans


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Banana Republicans

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Can't find a single independent, reliable source. Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - While the phrase Banana Republicans seems to have some currency, this book is totally lacking significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Just press releases mostly. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The book review notes: "Though it obviously sides with the left wing, Banana Republicans works in the finest traditions of objective journalism. Rampton and Stauber are interested in facts, pure and simple. Never once do they say 'this is bad' and leave it at that. Everything is backed up by solid reporting. For any conservatives who read this book, it will hopefully serve notice as to what their leaders have been doing, and how much truth there is to their claims. For liberals, it is an explanation of why one viewpoint dominates popular discourse, and a starting point for evening out the balance."  The book review notes: "Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber contend in Banana Republicans that Scissorgate was the product of a sophisticated, multi-faceted right-wing attack machine. It is pretty hard at this point to deny that such a machine exists; Rampton and Stauber do a nice job of reviewing its components and the independent components function as a whole." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Banana Republicans to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 
 * Notability (books) says: "A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: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.</ol>" The book has received two reviews: Riverwest Currents and Multinational Monitor. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced Riverwest Currents is a reliable source. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NBOOK.


 * Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as per WP:NBOOK. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as per WP:NBOOK. Multiple book reviews. Archrogue (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.