Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News

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

One sentence sub, little or no content beyond "it exists", completely unreferenced, no assertion of notability -- simply being published does not automatically qualify for an article. Contested prod from August 2008, ample time given without any sort of improvement.


 * Delete as nominator. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable book.Czolgolz (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: per the link the article, this, this, this, and this. There is also lots more in Google News. Schuym1 (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is over 30 reliable sources with significant coverage in Google News. Why didn't you bother to do a quick search before nominating? Schuym1 (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Schuym1. --Delirium (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Bernard Goldberg, until there is enough material on the page to support a non-stubby entry. No reason not to discuss the book in the already short article on the author. Merging will create a single article with more substance. bd2412  T 20:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The page can easily be expanded with over 30 sources and there is nothing wrong with stubs if they are notable. Schuym1 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to WP:STUB. Schuym1 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per Schuyml BD2412. An example of a perfectly useless article that tells us little more than that a book with this title is in existence. Mandsford (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it a useless article when there are many sources? Schuym1 (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And why is your !vote per me? I don't want it merged. Schuym1 (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry about that Schuym1.  I confused the end of your response to BD2412 with the end of his/her comment. Mandsford (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep In addition to the hundreds of gnews hits, at least 30 with significant coverage, that Schuym1 points out, there are 160 gbooks hits and 118 gscholar hits.  There's more than enough out there to write a very long article on this very notable bestseller. (As noted on the talk page, " #1 on the NYT Best Seller list for a whole season"). That nobody has is no reason for deletion. Earlier versions like  were quite long, but were almost entirely "plot summary." John Z (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, when I said over 30 that was from only 4 pages. Schuym1 (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article is merely underdeveloped. The book was widely discussed in reliable sources when published. WillOakland (talk) 22:55, 11 January 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.