Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political Repression in Modern America from 1870 to 1976


 * 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 no consensus over application of WP:RS. Default to keep. Deryck C. 22:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Political Repression in Modern America from 1870 to 1976

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I found other books using this book in footnotes. That does show that the book is considered reliable and a good reference, but that does not show notability per WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, WP:GNG and WP:NOTE. Phearson (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. And this is why I keep thinking there should be a JSTOR parameter on the "find sources" bar. Although admittedly it was called Political Repression in Modern America: From 1870 to the Present when it was published in the late 70s, back when that was the present. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reviewed in Contemporary Sociology (and again)
 * Reviewed in the Journal of Politics
 * Reviewed in International Affairs
 * Reviewed in Labour
 * Reviewed in The Journal of American History
 * Reviewed in The American Historical Review
 * The pages and pages of books that cite this book should also be taken into consideration, but even without those, this is an obvious NBOOK pass. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable book. For the record, the periodization is wacky (why 1870? why 1976?). Carrite (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's presumably the time period between the readmission of the last Confederate state into the Union and perhaps the beginning of the book's writing. Did you not see the sources I linked? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 08:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not established. Three Six mentions in specialist literature thirty+ years ago, then nothing. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This "specialist literature" meets a much higher standard of reliable sourcing than we are accustomed to. Also, counting is an important skill, as is the ability to distinguish between a review and a "mention." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt correction of my error.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: per both general and specific guidelines  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  21:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously notable per Roscelese, it has significant coverage in appropriate communities. Sources ought to be included on the pages somewhere, I will copy the links over, but it would be best to include them in expanded information on the page, Sadads (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2012 (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.