Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces


 * 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. The subject received nontrivial treatment in multiple reliable sources. The merge discussion may occur on the article's talk page. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There are no reliable secondary sources, so this article fails Wikipedia policy on verifiability. The only claim to fame is that the book was written by Michelle Malkin &mdash; but by Malkin's own admission, it was virtually ignored outside of the extreme right-wing fringe. In Malkin's own words: "There have been no reviews in major newspapers, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. Even my former employers—the Seattle Times and L.A. Daily News—have ignored the book. Other than Cal Thomas, none of the big-name Beltway newspaper pundits wrote about the book." Much of the article consists of Malkin's complaints about how the book did not achieve widespread notability. This is not a valid encyclopedia article and is unlikely ever to be one. *** Crotalus *** 22:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; I wonder if we could speedy it as advertising? --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete While Michelle Malkin is clearly notable, I can’t see that this book meets the standards as outlined in WP:BK. — Travis talk  22:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Smerge per Corvus cornix -- yes, it seems that it would be a good idea to keep at least a bit of this information. — Travis talk  03:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Smerge into Michelle Malkin.  Corvus cornix  talk  00:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Smerge? — Travis talk  00:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * speedy merge. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ahh...I see — Travis talk  03:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, isn't it slight merge? I.e. merge only some of it. Punkmorten (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Slight merge, as in, just the highlights.  Corvus cornix  talk  18:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What about WP:N and WP:RS? --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Selective Merge into Michelle Malkin (unless someone shows the book to notable in the next day or two ...). We probably should look at whether any of the articles about her other books should be merged too. CWC 17:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Keep. Per George100 below, meets criteria 1 of Notability (books). CWC 01:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into Michelle Malkin. (See also Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom, which raises similar issues.) The lack of reliable evidence of notability means that this book simply isn't worthy of a separate article. The book fails every criterion of Notability (books). I've found no evidence that it's been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. It certainly hasn't won any literary awards, it hasn't been adapted for film or television, it isn't used for educational purposes and its author cannot be described as historically significant. It's also not enough to cite sources that mention a book only in passing (that's why Notability (books) talks of non-trivial references). To quote: "The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Also, when assessing third-party references to the book, bear in mind that the reference itself needs to be a reliable source: "'Non-trivial' excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable." I realise that some editors may like the book's political thesis, but our criteria for inclusion are those set out by Notability (books), not editors' own personal political preferences. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Two reliable sources for reviews: National Review, and Reason magazine .  Furthermore it was on the NY Times Bestseller list briefly.  --George100 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable book, the article needs to be developed.--CltFn (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per George100; we have two full reviews for a book on the NY Times Bestseller list. That's notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per George100 and additional Human Events review for notability. Argyriou (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: article has improved since Afd, references to prove notability are there now. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:34, 15 January 2008 (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.