Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menace in Europe: Why the Continent's Crisis Is America's, Too


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Menace in Europe: Why the Continent's Crisis Is America's, Too
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Lack of third-party reliable sources means that this article fails verifiability policy. *** Crotalus *** 19:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Closing administrator: Please note that I have completely rewritten and added significant amounts of material to Menace in Europe article. Please also note the several reputable sources reviewing this book, which I was able to find in about five minutes. travb (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per nomination, unless credibly defended under WP:BK. Article can always be recreated if a case for notability is made. We have too much book-spam on WP on the basis "create article first, establish WP:BK later or never". --dab (𒁳) 12:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep In addition to the Baltimore Chronicle review, already on this page, there is Google books: National Review did an article on this book, also America's Intelligence Wire, American Enterprise, Times Online. Recommendations for the book, including Michael Medved, reviews including New Oxford Review, The Jerusalem Post, The New York Sun and Canada's most influential news Macleans. WP:BK is used, which states, "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources 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" Quoting acronyms is no substitute for taking two minutes to search of Google News and Google.  travb (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep not the least a bad faith nomination, given it was an almost almost meaningless article about a book by what would have seemed a non-notable author. The best course after keeping will be to make an article on the author and merge this one into it. DGG (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - travb's claim of a bad-faith nomination is completely without merit, for starters. As for the article, it fails every aspect of WP:BK.  It should also be noted that a stated intent of the now-banned user who authored this book's article was to create articles with the intent that they get picked up by google searches and artificially inflate the subject's importance. Tarc (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How can you claim that this article "fails every aspect of WP:BK" When I (1) quote several prominent magazines that mentions this book, (2) when I am the only one who actually quotes the acronym WP:BK that everyone uses here: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources 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". Is National Review and Times Online trivial works? Let me add my own acronym: Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions "A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself...the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article" travb (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can claim it because it is, um, true? Your Google search (never a reliable method of establishing notability in itself) turns up nothing significant.  The Times Online mentions the book in passing while taking about a different book, for example.  As for "Arguments to the person", yes, I generally agree with that, but I feel that this is an exception.  An off-wiki sock/meatpuppet group was organized to create and artificially inflate the standing of non-notable works such as this.  The extreme bad faith undertaken by a banned user  in the creation of this article should be a consideration here. Tarc (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I retracted my comments which may detract from the evidence showing how illegitimate the deletion reasoning is here, and added many more sources which have reviewed this book. There is no possible way that this book will ever be considered worthy to be on wikipedia by some editors here. There is some past bad blood between some editors and the creator of this article, which some editors insist on bringing into this article. So, as user:DGG so eloquently put it: "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience." The National Review article is ignored, and the short mention of the Times Online is focused on, because the National Review article is a full review of the book. travb (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Google News search linked above shows notability per WP:BK. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above: although it should be moved to Menace in Europe: Why the Continent's Crisis is America's (Book).--Sallicio$\color{Red} \oplus$ 01:50, 24 December 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.