Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blacklisted by History


 * 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) Sprinting faster (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted by History

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NBOOK absent significant coverage in reliable sources - all sources are fringe, such as AIM, Canada Free Press, Renew America, letters to the editor, etc. or alternately coincidentally contain the phrase in a piece published before the book existed. DePRODed by creator who said he would work on it, but without any reliable sources, it isn't going anywhere. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's a very important book supplying needed balance to a one-sided view of Joseph McCarthy. The book was reviewed in many publications, and was praised in a speech to the National Press Club (USA) last year. Also, lack of sources in the initial stub is not a reason to delete an article. At worst, the closing admin might require me to userfy it till it's more fleshed out. But the significance of topic itself should be the question, not how comprehensive my initial version was. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should start with user page versions until you have enough sources to make viable articles instead of creating unsourced stubs. You wouldn't have 3 or 4 of your newly created stub articles at AFD right now if you did.  He  iro  20:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note from article creator to closing admin: I have no objection to having the page moved to my user space, if efforts to bring it up to minimum standards are taking too long. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plenty of coverage of this controversial book in reliable sources, and the article now includes some of these sources.  Article still needs work but there's no reason to delete it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, but have an editor with WP:COMPETENCE rewrite from scratch. The current detritus badly obfuscates the notability to the topic -- particularly citing the lead sentence solely to the book itself and its publisher, and relying on WP:FRINGE sources when a lengthy NYT review is available and badly underutilised. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC) (Have since rewritten it myself. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:20, 14 January 2012 (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.