Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Edward Snowden Affair: Exposing the Politics and Media Behind the NSA Scandal


 * 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   Speedy delete g7, the page has one contributor, User:Maldoror2, who has now blanked the page twice. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Edward Snowden Affair: Exposing the Politics and Media Behind the NSA Scandal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No independent, reliable references except for local press. Fails WP:NBOOK. Bgwhite (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: No evidence of notability. Article fails WP:NBOOK. In fact, the title of the article is a mess.Wikicology (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite Personal Bias

On author's main page Michael Gurnow it clearly states he was interviewed about The Edward Snowden Affair on Boston, Phoenix, Chicago, and New Orleans radio.


 * Erskine Overnight radio interview
 * The Howie Carr Show radio interview
 * Ringside Politics with Jeff Crouere radio interview
 * Edgington Post radio interview
 * The Mark Johnson Show radio interview
 * Homeland Security Today's expose on The Edward Snowden Affair

Book has also been reviewed by Pure Politics: http://purepolitics.com/


 * Book review of The Edward Snowden Affair by Dr. Wilson Trivino

Book is even still listed on Amazon.com as best seller in Civil Rights.

Bgwhite also deleted mention of these citations on author's main page prior to suggesting page deletion, suggestive of political or personal bias.

Suggestion this admin. be reported for deliberate abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldoror2 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned readdition (H2 heading removed) done by Hisashiyarouin (talk • contribs) 08:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - note the author has a biography here, making the article obviously unsuitable for deletion (though perhaps suitable for redirection and/or merger, I haven't looked exhaustively for sources or anything). Wily D 08:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment:, the notability of a book is independent of its author. The author of a book can be notable, that does not implies that the book itself its notable. Also note that this discussion is about the notability of the book and not its author. Suggesting a redirect could be appropriate. Wikicology (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've no idea why you'd direct that nonsequiter to me. Wily D 08:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , I don't mean otherwise. Accept my apology if you find it offensive.Wikicology (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, no. You're just not getting your point across. (Or phrasing it awkwardly or something, I don't know). Wily D  09:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Author article started no more than 10 hours earlier than this by the same user. Perusing user contribs reveals Maldoror2 has edited very rarely outside Michael Gurnow/Blue River Press books. Also just in related articles (in the mainspace) are being nominated by creator by WP:U1 inappropriately.  野狼院 ひさし  Hisashi Yarouin 08:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum: With edit summaries "This book does not exist" (The Edward Snowden Affair) and "The person it is about does not exist" (Michael Gurnow) "This is a vanity page created by the business's staff" (Blue River Press).  野狼院 ひさし  Hisashi Yarouin 08:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , Maldoror2 has stated they are the PR person for the book's publisher. Bgwhite (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We are unable to review said comment, because the Userpage has been conveniently deleted at request of Maldoror2 &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 14:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the aforementioned edit summary "edit summaries "This book does not exist"" is pretty clearly meant to be facetious or tongue-in-cheek. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 14:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment We need to also remove his name from the list of books about Edward Snowden as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Further_reading (even though maldoror2 wasn't the one responsible for citing it).  Also if someone would, contact Barnes & Noble, Amazon.com, Books-a-Million, abe, Hastings Entertainment and all the libraries worldwide--http://www.worldcat.org/title/edward-snowden-affair-exposing-the-politics-and-media-behind-the-nsa-scandal/oclc/863078360--and tell them they are selling/checking out a book that isn't noteworthy.  (And, for God's sake, tell Amazon.com to take it off their "Civil Rights" bestseller list.)  We might also email Google and tell them the 7,000+hits on the author and book title should be blocked:  https://encrypted.google.com/#q=the+edward+snowden+affair+michael+gurnow  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldoror2 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have some sources which show how the book meets the criteria set out here, please provide them. Otherwise, your behaviour is verging on disruptive. For my part, I !vote to Redirect to Michael Gurnow. Yunshui 雲 水 11:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of books are bestsellers and don't have articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete on the merits. There's no question that the book exists, but there's also no question that it is not (yet!) notable. No objections to a redirect, as proposed above. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment – I'd agree with a merge, redirect, or delete. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2014 (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.