Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illiberal Reformers


 * 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)  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   02:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Illiberal Reformers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fewer than 150 unique GHits, a couple of reviews (NYT, which normally counts for osmething, and New Republic, not so much), but no real evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: GHits are untrustworthy per comment against Arnold Kling below. More than surpasses NBOOK#1 with coverage also in/at WSJ, National Review, Foreign Affairs, Reason, Bloomberg View and BV again (...and then I found the author's page). Author is currently speedied, and as he doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC, merge or redirect would be a reasonable alternative. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:BKCRIT #1 with multiple reviews mentioned above and in the article. I'm not sure why the nominator says The New Republic doesn't count; it's a long-established and prominent magazine often cited in other media. And there is coverage in other sources. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Plenty of significant reliable coverage. Google hits don't prove anything ever. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as the sources available assert notability. I hope someone will edit the article, as it's a little on the POV side, with some editorializing going on.  freshacconci  (✉) 15:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:BKCRIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2017 (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.