Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radicals for Capitalism


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 11:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Radicals for Capitalism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

minor book, not notable, does not meet book criteria for notability --Buridan (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"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. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary."
 * Comment: The "book criteria for notability" asserts that a sufficient criterion for the notability of a book is if:


 * Would the nominator care to explain how the references in the article are deficient in this respect? Skomorokh  15:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * a few random reviews is not significant coverage for notability.  It still needs to be notable, the reviews posted are primarily vanity reviews, not marking the particular text as notable.  The book is cited 5 times in google scholar, were it notable, that would be 300-500 minimally if not more.  Perhaps in 20 years it will be notable, but as it stands this book is a minor work. --Buridan (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The first review reviews the acknowledgements. The second review describes the 600 page book reading as a 200 page novel, pretty damning.  The third is an interview with the author, the notability of the author does not transfer to the book, The NYT review debates the history then calls a section of the book 'most troubling' again, the review is pretty damning,  the city journal gives a solid review of the merits of the book, but doesn't mention anywhere that it should be read or is a notable contribution, the WT review calls it readable and enjoyable, The Sandiego newspaper explicitly says it is not a review, nor a recommendation, but calls it a 'solid work' and Boaz calls it a fine work of political history.... Given that none of the reviews or citations even seem to indicate much notability at all, in fact the last one is mostly just a reference to his Boaz's Cato blog, I'm not sure there is any notability here.  Just base reviews for and against, only two saying it should be read at all.   I think this is merely citation loading trying to appear as verifiable notability, but in the end it is just verified that it is another book. --Buridan (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to investigate the sources, I don't disagree with your assessment of the critical reception. I do believe, however, that you misunderstand the concept of notability in the context of Wikipedia. For a topic to be "notable" does not mean that it is important, it means that a neutral, reliably sourced article of a decent length can be written about it. Our notability guidelines are very clear on this point: the very fact that the book has had non-trivial third party coverage in reliable sources confers it notability. Skomorokh  18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that these are trivial reviews, none indicates any sense of notability beyond... yet another books.--Buridan (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, with some regret. This would appear to be a history of economanic pseudo-libertarianism that has nevertheless been noted and reviewed by the New York Times, The Guardian, and other disinterested general interest publications.  It would therefore appear to be notable under the relevant specific guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. David Boaz is (also) a reliable source, have listened to him on several occasions. Ottre 15:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - A review of the book in the New York Times meets criteria 1 of WP:BK. Not to mention it's also been reviewed in the LA Times, The Guardian, and the Washington Times, as noted in the article.  If those don't qualify as "serving a general audience" I don't know what does.  Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reviews in the New York Times, The Guardian, the Washington Times, and the San Diego Union-Tribune, and discussion in a Los Angeles Times editorial are enough to satisfy the first criterion of WP:BK. Thechuck 2112 (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand with many sources available. Obviously meets WP:BK with multiple reviews in a variety of main stream sources. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:02, 10 February 2009 (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.