Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restoring the Lost Constitution


 * 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. Merge/redirect discussions can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Restoring the Lost Constitution

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Read likes an WP:OR book report, only two citations, no content about why book is notable. Rillian (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I have trouble thinking that any singular book/project of Randy Barnett is particularly notable, to be honest. Also somewhat biased in tone. Merge and Redirect ThatOtherMike (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article has been in existence since 2004. It is not some little stub article, either. If you don't like the way the article is written, then fix it. Lack of citations is not part of WP:DEL. Regarding WP:OR, the standard is "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." You are arguing based on the fact that material is not attributed to reliable sources, but that is not the standard. Here's some material for you:, , , . Regarding notability, I'll simply point out that a Google search for "Restoring the Lost Constitution" (in quotes) turns up over 28,000 results. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. It does not have a limit on how much information it can hold. What is the benefit of deleting information that people may actually want to read? On a personal note, in the past I have found this article to be a useful source of information. --JHP (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The claim of WP:OR is related to the inclusion of editor commentary and POV opinion about the book's content and the claimed impact of the content. Rillian (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, a merge and redirect does not mean the content will be deleted, just included with the Randy Barnett article. The question at hand is whether the book is worthy of a stand-alone article. Rillian (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect Wikipedia is not a book report. If this book received media coverage and commentary, write an article about that. Shii (tock) 02:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- this book been much discussed in U.S. constitutional scholarship in recent years, and has won awards, per existing source. The article clearly needs more sources for it's claims, but article deletion is inappropriate; rather, the unsourced material should be deleted if it is not sourced in a reasonable period of time. N2e (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural Close - AFD is not the venue for discussing article merges. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: AfD is indeed the venue for discussing the fate of any  article where its status is unclear and a community decision  is required. Merge and redirect  is an extremely common  outcome. Kudpung (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - the nominator altered his nomination statement rather than striking through. The nomination to which I responded, did not advocate deleting the article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect : The entire 'theory' section  is unsourced original  research and/or point of view, and should be deleted immediately. There are no  sources on  the page that  assert notability for the book even if it is an award winner. Verifiability, not truth, is the core policy  of Wikipedia. Kudpung (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Barnett's a bit kooky, but i see indications of notability that shouldn't be ignored.  Book review in a major law review journal: ; book review in American Prospect: ; review in washington times ; mention in passing by Jeffrey Rosen (leading legal writer) at NYT called it a "provocative book".  From most of these sources you can predict Barnett's political leaning, but these aren't petty sources.--Milowent • talkblp-r  05:06, 4 February 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.