Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reasons to Vote for Democrats


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Reasons to Vote for Democrats
AfDs for this article:  
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This might qualify for a brief mention in an article about satire in the 2016 election if one exists, but the book itself is a one-joke wonder, and a clear knockoff of the much earlier and identical 50 Reasons To Vote for Donald Trump (on which we, rightly, have no article). Guy (Help!) 14:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 15:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 15:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete the previous AfD related to SIGCOV, and once something's notable it's always notable - but I don't think it was ever notable in the first place, the significant coverage was mostly routine, and there's no lasting impact. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nothing has changed since last keep - except for more coverage. The book clealry meets GNG with SIGCOV which is continuing. Furthermore the book passes WP:NBOOK(1) with several RSes covering the book in depth (arguably in a more verbose fashion than the book itself). Nom's oppinions on the literary merits of the book are irrelevant - what matters notability wise is coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. SportingFlyer is incorrect, there was impact:  This book produced a fad, a spate of copycat blank books with satirical titles like Reasons to Vote for Republicans. I just added a brief, sourced, section on the copycat books to the page.  There certainly was WP:SIGCOV, more than enough to pass WP:NBOOK.  I remember at least one satirical review, set up like a regular book review - but blank.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we really call those others books copycats of this one, when this was a copycat of previous books that did the same thing? Reactionary might be a better word to use. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 20:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was citing The Guardian, which made that assertion. But I take you point, it was not a new gag.  More to the point, however, this satirical "book" passes WP:NBOOK and WP:SIGCOV with flying covers.  It was a thing, media attention was significant and international. , and even somewhat sustained .  And once notable, always notable.  WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a policy-based reason for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh. In these Clickbait times, I bet that each and every dress ms. Melania Trump has worn after her husband became POTUS, has more WP:RS coverage than this "book". That hopefully doesnt mean that Wikipedia will end up with an article on each and everyone of ms. Trump's dresses. (Though personally, I think each of her dresses are far more interesting than this "book". At least the dresses cover something...;P ) Huldra (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete this is as "funny" as A History of the Palestinian People..an ancient joke which hasn't gotten better by being repeated. We had The Great Book of Lesbian Humor, in the 1960s,  and Everything Obama Knows About the Economy, in 2011. Also all blank books, and all, AFAIK, self published and utterly non-notable. Huldra (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it even a book, though? SportingFlyer (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It has an ISBN, referred to as a book by RS. It would be gross WP:OR to claim otherwise. Perhaps this is a coffee table book, but those can be notable as any other book given coverage. Being self published has little impact on notability (which is coverage based) - it does perhaps affect our own use of the book as a RS (we typically require a good publisher for vetting the book contents).Icewhiz (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.createspace.com (The publisher of this masterpiece) is a self publishing place. Anyone with money to spare could do the same, say publish empty books on "Reasons to Vote for Republicans", or "Reasons to vote for Bibi Netanyahu"), To say that that merit an article is really just too stupid, IMO. Huldra (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly anyone can createspace a book. The book existing is not a sign of notability. Coverage satisfying NBOOK(1) and GNG is what matters - not editor opinions on the merits of the book.Icewhiz (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So each time there has been a lot of coverage on, say UFO sightings, or Melania Trump's latest expensive outfit, we can start an article about it? I hope not, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... googling "melania trump dolce gabbana coat" gives 4,150,000 results...and we still dont have an article about it....Huldra (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article was deemed a Keep already on 7/2017 because "the book passes WP:GNG through sustained news coverage". The Nom presents no counterfactuals other than his personal opinion, and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument.  Did the Nom do a WP:BEFORE?  Against his opinion weigh WP:SIGCOV by the BBC, the Guardian, the Washington Post, The Hill, and Business Insider, all already cited in the article, plus many sources so far un-cited, such as Fortune, the Los Angeles Times , The Weekly Standard , and the Huffington Post , to cite a few among many. XavierItzm (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Something of a stretch to describe that as sustained, other than by assiduous PR. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:BOOKCRIT. "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." The existing article and users above have shown that this clearly meets that standard. Cait.123 (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we write a general article about this type of joke book to which the various titles could be redirected? E.g., empty book. Until that exists, delete ; simply because there's not more to say about any of these except "it's an empty book", and the reactions to it are ephemeral routine politicking.  Sandstein   23:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This class of books is not always empty - beyond the cover there is often some text inside beyond the title. For some of these, the emptiness is a strong stmt regarding the subject - and coverage rises wel beyond GNG. Note we have several silent musical creations List of silent musical compositions, e.g. 4′33″. Deciding what is andnwhat is not an empty book would furthermore entail WP:OR.Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge selectively to Empty book which I have now started as a list article, and will continue to add to.  Sandstein   11:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Gonna give this another week and see if we can get something resembling consensus.
 * Merge as per Sandstein; there's apparently enough of this that some article on the phenomenon of intentionally-blank books under a joke title is needed. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not a book, it is a bunch of blank pages. Just because it received a short twitter-storm mention does not make it notable. If that was enough for notability than we would have an article Dieter F. Uchtdorf mentions of being a pilot in General Conference talks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Johnpacklambert argues "This is not a book". That is WP:OR, unless he can provide a RS for his statement.  This is very much a book, having received reviews, having an ISBN, and having reached best-seller status.   XavierItzm (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The book became the number one best-selling book on Amazon.com which is no small feat. Furthermore, in the "Trumpcentric" post 2016 election media world (Donald Trump generates a lot of press via his Twitter account, etc.), Trump mentioning the book is notable. In addition, when you look at the sources of the article they are all mainstream citations (Los Angeles Times, The Hill, BBC, etc.).  Granted, the book is essentially a satirical prank that didn't have much impact, but the book did in a round a bout way point out that the Democratic party has no main message/theme/plans right now (even Michael Moore has said about the Democrats that they have "no message, no plan, no leaders"). Of course, this is nothing new, but it has gotten worse (Will Rogers famously joked: "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.").Knox490 (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete All sources are run-of-the-mill news articles rather than substantive coverage for notability. Reywas92Talk 07:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I would also in principal support the merge proposal, but I think Empty Book already has all that is worth including there. On another issue, I am thinking that the article on Empty Book would be helped by more generalized discussion of the phenomenon. I have to wonder if anyone has ever written an article such as "online book sales and the rise of the empty book."John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the coverage out there is on individual books that are notable. Empty books as a phenomena receives less coverage that the individually notable books.Icewhiz (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * oppose merge; article should be kept (my iVote to keep is above) for the same reasons that we keep any notable book: because it got an enormous amount of WP:SIGCOV over an extended period of time, including multiple, full book reviews in significant publication. (c.f.: The Roger Kimball review in The Weekly Standard: Shooting Blanks: "this brief, but comprehensive, inquiry...  covers all the bases: There are chapters on Economics, Foreign Policy, Civil Rights, Education, Homeland Security, Energy, Jobs, Crime, Immigration, and (perhaps the weightiest section) Values. Knowles has covered the waterfront.... his extensive bibliography...  has done his homework: He has drawn on a wide and bipartisan range of works, from Saul Alinsky's classic handbook for community organizers, Rules for Radicals, to Peter Schweizer's critical investigation into the Clintons' finances in Clinton Cash—and many other books.") Satire book inspiring full length satiric reviews from public intellectuals.   This is what notability for a book looks like. [[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory] (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2018 (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.