Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The International Man


 * 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 redirect to Doug Casey. No firm arguments in favour of keeping, redirect has sufficient support. Michig (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The International Man

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Please see this revision of the article with sources indicating notability of this book. User some time ago redirected the article to Doug Casey based on a merge discussion which never happened (the merge was reverted), and over the past couple days they have progressively stripped sourced info from the article, leaving the unsourced stub you see now. I was about to restore the earlier revision, however when doing a search on the topic I see that the available sources are either written by or closely affiliated with Casey, or unreliable libertarian blogs, and in fact the notability of the book is very much questionable. Given the article history I don't think a bold redirect would stick, so I am nominating here. Ivanvector (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 18:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 18:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Haven't looked to thoroughly for sources, but one linked does mention that "Casey's book The International Man was the most sold book in the history of Rhodesia." Not sure how to verify that, though.. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * DELETE I see why the old version was gutted.  The stub is about a book published in the 1970's.  The old version contains a sales pitch and it also is not written in a way that makes sense.  If it is not deleted then the new version needs to be kept. It is much better.Wayver (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect - in case it wasn't clear from my nomination statement, I am in favour of redirecting the article to Doug Casey, the author's article, since the book does not appear to be separately notable. It could be mentioned there. Ivanvector (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2015 (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.