Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unremarkable book that came out last month; I think it does not meet standards for notable books. No indication that it has received particular critical or popular attention, is a best-seller, has been influential, etc. Prod declined by article creator. Neutralitytalk 20:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep--I've rewritten the article to include a couple of references from credible outside sources. The book did receive some outside attention.  It's still pretty stubby, and could use a good neutral summary, but there probably deserves to be an article on this.  Meelar (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meelar's rewrite has made it worth keeping, It seems to have received significant coverage per WP:GNG. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  22:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable per google news search. . Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the article in its current state lists sufficient independent RS coverage to merit inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Is this a best seller? No. Is this a scholarly piece of work that has influenced a field of study or a learned profession? No. Is this a piece of ephemeral ultra-politicized polemical bilge, recently released and on the radar for the next three months until it is remaindered? Hmmmm, now we're getting close to the mark. Wikipedia is not Conservapedia. Carrite (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added some more response to the book to the article (hope I haven't managed to unbalance it). For all the sound and fury around this, has anyone seen a review for this book in a reliable source? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - while there are three reviews from reliable sources (such as Variety), there is likewise no evidence it's actually notable from major book reviwers, such as the LA Times, New York Times, etc. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: no notability. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 22:20, 16 June 2011 (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.