Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Make the Black Kids Angry


 * 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 delete. The one (bolded) "keep" opinion doesn't address the reasons for deletion, and the other "keep" opinion isn't enough on its own to stop a consensus for deletion.  Sandstein  19:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't Make the Black Kids Angry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the sources, this is a self-published through Amazon's CreateSpace and I can find no reliable sources discussing it in depth. The links are all to the usual right-wing etc sources that would praise anything like this book. Doug Weller (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * While some of article sources may be the usual right-wing etc. sources that would praise anything like this book. they are notable sources. This sounds like another example of  Wikipedia, I just don't like it  Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, why are you still adding sources to show that he wrote the book? That only needs one source. The issue is whether "The book has been the subject" of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] 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."


 * ""Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source." So it isn't a question of whether a source is notable enough to have its own article, but if it's non-trivial. Doug Weller (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am adding other notable references to the article as I find them. Again, Wikipedia is supposed to be a site devoid of personal passions and personal agendas, such as Wikipedia, I just don't like it. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks a lot like WP:JDLI -- Frotz(talk) 00:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Very poor argument in favour of keeping. In fact a complete misunderstanding of notability requirements AusLondonder (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Frotz was notified about this AfD by Neptune's Trident. Neptune also notified C.Fred, Plot Spoiler, Jlambert and myself (on November 8, 10pm). Coincidentally all of us voted Keep in a previous related AfD. ‎Neptune said "you were part of the discussion of the previous book [ed: White Girl Bleed a Lot] so I thought you might want to be involved in this discussion". There's nothing wrong with neutral notifications but if this is not a case of WP:VOTESTACK I don't know what is. I mentioned it discretely to Neptune, suggesting he also notify a couple who voted Delte in the "previous discussion", but he did not reply and in fact silently deleted my comment (which is his right), but I see it as a VOTESTACK and am abstaining from making a !vote. -- Green  C  05:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * delete the only source that is approaching a reliable one, VICE, mentions it only in passing. Apart from that I can see no reliable coverage, just a collection of politically biased sites and/or personal ones. Unless someone can come up with some proper coverage then it is a clear delete.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree, Townhall.com, The Sean Hannity Show, FrontPage Magazine, WorldNetDaily, WSGO radio, The Anthony Cumia Show, Accuracy in Media, are all notable sources and notable media coverage. Editors may disagree with them because of not liking their politics, but that doesn't not make them notable media sources.  All these sources were deemed to be notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles, this book, while controversial in its subject matter, has more than enough notable coverage and sources.  As another editor stated, this looks another case of WP:JDLI. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are confusing notability and reliability. I did not write they are not notable. I wrote they are not reliable. Many things are notable but not reliable. And WP requires in depth coverage in reliable sources.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, respectfully, in your opinion they are not reliable. The Sean Hannity Show has many millions of listeners, it is a professional radio show with very high ratings, I'm certainly millions of people would consider it reliable, FrontPage Magazine is an online news magazine read by millions, as is WorldNetDaily, the readership of both these news sources sees them as reliable, WGSO radio is a professional radio news outlet, that doesn't make any of these sources less reliable than say a left leaning source like The Nation or Mother Jones, many would not consider Mother Jones or The Nation reliable because of their left wing politics.  If a book has enough media coverage from professional sources, like these, that makes it notable enough for Wikipedia, even if some editors who lean left politically may consider these sources not reliable in their opinion because they dislike some of the sources right of center politics. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are wrong about this. Whether a source is reliable is often determined by the community at WP:RSN. AusLondonder (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Does not meet WP:NBOOK, failing to have at least two non-trivial reviews in reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Changing my vote to delete. The consensus has pretty much spoken.  I'm fine with the article being deleted ASAP.  If the book were not self-published, that's one thing.  But as another editor correctly pointed out, this is not a book published by WorldNetDaily as I originally thought. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2015 (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.