Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation


 * 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; 06:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested PROD, per notability standards. I dream of horses (T) @ 00:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The book is listed at the current NYT as a best-seller in its category, at no. 14. But that's not enough to satisfy any of the criteria at Notability (books): no coverage by reliable reviewers, no movie, no Pulitzer — so no article. PhGustaf (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Anyone interested in this book could greatly benefit by seeing this wiki article. On the other hand, it won't hurt anyone just because it doesn't meet your high standard of notability.  Reach the top 20 best sellers, and your book should at the very least, be eligible for a measly wikipedia article.129.72.188.191 (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I cited the claim regarding the bestseller status to clear that up, but I don't think the article is strong enough to keep. A quick Google search shows some reviews, but they aren't by very reliable sources (for example, the first refers to the author as his friend). GorillaWarfare  talk 01:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per this which includes a news interview about the book, this, this, and this. Joe Chill (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Four reviews independant reviews could be argued as fufilling the significant coverage criterium. Angrysockhop ( talk to me ) 05:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Its a bestseller, and if you spend a few brief moments clicking the Google news search at the top of this AFD, you'll see it has gotten coverage.  D r e a m Focus  09:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: easily passes WP:GNG, and meets WP:BK#1.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per above. Passes GNG. EuroPride (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment since the current notability guidelines for books doesnt include anything about bestseller status, we have to invoke WP:IGNORE in this case. Is this what the Keep votes are really saying? i find it odd that music albums are listed on WP based often exclusively on their Billboard status (if even that), but books are put through this procrustean nightmare to show notability. Im not a fan of this book, but i feel strongly that a NYT bestseller, that can sustain for say, at least 3 weeks, should automatically have a stub, unless its a trivial book (a cat christmas cookbook).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that the four sources that I posted show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NB criteria. Is by a notable publisher Threshold Editions (part of Simon & Schuster. Has received press coverage Washinton Post, C-Span both positive and negative. Appears to be new, but the author is a known cable news pundit.--Savonneux (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep based on coverage, but article would be improved if some of the coverage were discussed in it. No, I'm not volunteering to improve our information about this right-wing hit piece, but it's a notable right-wing hit piece, so keep the article. JamesMLane t c 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The cites include only an announcement of the publication by the publisher, two notes from the NYT about the book's sales, and two highly partisan interviews with the author. Not nearly enough.  No reviews from solid sources.  If you want to change the notability guidelines for books, do so on the appropriate pages, not here. PhGustaf (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The creator of the article is an apparent sockpuppet Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600 of the banned editor User:Grundle2600. PhGustaf (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep NYT bestsellers are notable. It may not be in the guideline page, but it makes basic sense and we can use it as a guideline if we choose to. I think we generally do in fact use it this way.  DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete sources given are blogs, newsmax (hah!), and similarly unreliable sources. We have people here casting keep votes because they think certain things should be in WP:BK but actually are not, so these opinions should be discarded in the final analysis. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - did not realize that FOXNews - Forbes - Seattle Post Intelligencer were unreliable sources and just blogs. It seems the first three covered the book, as shown here .  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 02:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG if others do support this, which they should, in most cases. personally, foxnews is not reliable, but they have become accepted as a reliable source by other reliable sources, so they get to play. we dont referee here so much as apply others calls.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The issue of reliability doesn't enter into it for AfD purposes.  I personally don't consider Fox News reliable, because it's less of a news organization than it is a media megaphone for the right wing.  That said, it's a large and successful media megaphone, so when Fox blasts out a particular bit of right-wing propaganda, that goes a long way toward making said propaganda notable. JamesMLane t c 13:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Week delete - one week at #14 on the NY Times list before dropping off to oblivion isn't by itself an indication of notability. Has anyone checked lately how few sales one actually needs to be the #14 nonfiction book?  It's like peaking at #14 for a week in film.  I would change to a weak keep if reliable sources could be found and added describing the book's importance, relevance, and/or effect on anything.  As of now there are no citations to reliable sources for anything other than the sales numbers.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per Shoessss amd Mercurywoodrose above. Digby (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as political humor is a good antidote to political humorlessness; notable enough. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2010 (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.