Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare


 * 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   SNOW keep. Consensus that the article should not be deleted is overwhelmingly clear; other discussion can continue elsewhere. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non notable book. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC) The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. The immediately preceding criterion 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. The book has won a major literary award. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. References in article indicate signficant coverage satisfying the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and suggest early snowball close- Sources aplenty showing the GNG is met and then some. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - these "references" are mostly blogs and do not demonstrate how this subject is notable. There has not been signifiant coverage of this text, nor credible reviews. As such the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sites like Entertainment Weekly, New York Daily News, and The Guardian aren't blogs. Joe Chill (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The first is a blog entry, the second only address the subject as part of a larger story, the third source is about is not a review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Entertainment Weekly is not a blog and the third reference is significant coverage. There is no rule that reliable sources for books have to be reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage-not a blog, significant coverage-not a blog, significant coverage-not a blog, significant coverage-not a blog, significant coverage-not a blog, significant coverage-not a blog, and significant coverage-not a blog. Joe Chill (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:BK. None of the references are blogs. Joe Chill (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note The book doesn't meet these requirements;
 * Comment Due to the above standards, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, or merge. Most of what is quoted from is pre-release hype, which I'd discount.  But parodies of major works by candidates for high office should be notable, if not individually then at least collectively; this work already rates such a paragraph sized treatment in the main entry for Going Rogue.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As the sources and notability are not sufficient for an article - a merge might be a better solution. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First you say they are blogs. Then you say it's not enough coverage when it is according to WP:BK. All of the sources are newspapers. Joe Chill (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's more reliable sources with significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These references are mostly blogs, other articles mention the book in passing and/or comment that it exist. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Major newspapers are not blogs! Not being a review doesn't mean that it isn't significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: How are Entertainment Weekly, Salon.com, New York Daily News, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Politico.com, Publishers Weekly, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, The Nation, and NPR blogs? Joe Chill (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and suggest early snowball close. Plenty of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. For example, the Today Show staff writes 24 paragraphs about it, Roll Call writes about 700 words on it , etc. Clearly this book meets WP:GNG as these sources are not simply self-published, personal "blogs" or a "mention [of] the book in passing and/or comment that it exist". Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly worth keeping What on earth is wrong about the article? It has plenty of reasonable enough references. Cousin Kevin (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Ism schmism, may we take your "Thanks" as read? I sense that we've all been thanked quite enough already. -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on the notability guideline. It's bad. Quote from above: The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes (my emphases). First, what's so special about literature classes? Charles Darwin, for example, is about as historically significant an author as I can come up with. Yet unlike such dreary scriveners as D H Lawrence and Ezra Pound, his work would not be studied in literature classes. Indeed, I suspect that this paragraph is written by some well-meaning person who is blissfully uninformed about literary studies or further education: why else talk about study of the author's life in "literature classes"? -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the notability requirements listed above are standard. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you answer my above question? Joe Chill (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know which is sillier, the notability requirement or your compulsion to thank. -- Hoary (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Clearly WP:notable, mentioned in multiple Wp:RS and referenced. Per the above overwhelming consensus, discussion should probably be closed.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep good refs, and the writers contributing are significant political writers. this is not a joke book. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:BK by a mile. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Strong KEEP.   Passes WP:BK, WP:V, and WP:RS. This is a serious work of political writing. This book (ISBN 0757315240), a New York Times bestseller, should not be confused with a book by the same title that is a coloring book (ISBN 0615332773). This book is edited by two senior editors at The Nation. Further evidence of its seriousness are essays contained therein by Gloria Steinem, Naomi Klein, Eve Ensler, Frank Rich, and Robert Reich. The book has received coverage in Publishers Weekly, MSNBC, New York Daily News, and The Guardian, among others. —  Spike  Toronto  07:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note:   This book is not a parody. The only thing about it that is satire or parody is the title. —  Spike  Toronto  07:05, 27 December 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.