Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Myth of National Defense (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The Myth of National Defense
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is not a notable book. It's been sitting around here for a while, lacking reliable sources and reviews, and it's time to go. I searched ten pages of Google hits and found nothing but Goodreads and Amazon and an occasional mention on a blog, the most notable of which is this single mention, which isn't a review and lacks the kind of depth we need for a book to be considered notable. Google Books also does not provide evidence that the book has been cited and is thus notable; here is a journal article that cites one of the contributions in the book but, again, that's not enough. Finally, the only review included in the article is by Lew Rockwell (this is the correct URL), and Rockwell is...yeah, the guy who runs the joint that published the book. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see now this has been nominated before, but in that AfD I do not see valid keep arguments. laid out some conditions for keeping it, which  somewhat oddly sees as a reason to vote keep--but those conditions were never met (no reviews). Supposedly the book was reviewed here, but that link is dead and a publication by a thinktank (in this case Centre for Independent Studies) hardly qualifies as an in-depth review published by a reliable source. Finally, this was proposed as a review and a reason for notability, but it's just another blog. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the "dead link" review (or at least the first three paragraphs of it): Plenty of "think tank" sources are quoted from and used as sources on Wikipedia. The book review is at least 4 paragraphs long, and is by a named academic. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't believe the last point is relevant. Rockwell is a scholar, and his review should contribute toward showing that the book is notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Scholar or not, he has a serious conflict of interest which taints any objectivity the review may have. It's essentially like a blurb written on the publisher's invitation. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, it's not an important point. Many reviewers have a stake, one way or the other, in the books they review; that's not unusual at all, and does not mean that such reviews don't help to show the book is notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is a widely cited book, by academic sources, a few examples being : ; ; .  When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know that that's "widely" cited--one can argue that Sechrest acquires some notability because his article is cited in your first two examples. The third example is a bit sloppy. Sure, there's plenty more mentions, but this one also doesn't actually cite the book, and this is a Festschrift that only mentions the book. We can quibble over precisely what "widely cited" means, and maybe we should--I don't think those Google Book hits prove it. Do any of your sources discuss the book in depth, not just mention one of the articles? But what is especially damning is that there seem to be no reviews at all. The best that JSTOR has to offer (besides two obligatory mentions in the Journal for Ayn Rand Studies), for instance, is a single mention in a footnote: "Other recent works in this tradition include Hoppe (2003)" (http://www.jstor.org/stable/4027093). So no, I don't see it. Drmies (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per When Other Legends Are Forgotten. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – Current and suggested sources fail WP:NBOOK. Lew Rockwell's conflict of interest is substantial here. There's wiggle room for this kind of thing, but this is not just a passing association or professional relationship, but rather a review by the guy who founded and currently chairs the publishing company. That is a vested interest in promoting the book, which is fundamentally not independent, and cannot be used for notability per WP:GNG. Being cited in a few other books doesn't establish notability, either, as they are only a few extremely brief mentions in long lists of other mentions. Grayfell (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom and per Grayfell. This is an obscure book published by a minor think tank which isn't prominent in commentary on defence issues. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  → Call me  Razr   Nation  10:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks as though Rockwell's review was given as reason to keep the article last time around which as Grayfell points out above is seriously problematic. If we take that review out there simply isn't enough independent coverage to meet NB or the GNG. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep mainly on the basis of the 2004 book review in Policy (the journal of the Centre for Independent Studies), part of which is readable here . It suggest that the subject matter of the book held particular significance at that time, and, even though the journal has a political agenda contrary to that expressed in the book, the review still described the book as "most fascinating and horizon-widening". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good find, but I don't think the Centre for Independent Studies' political agenda is clearly contrary to that expressed by the book. Does the paywalled part of the review say otherwise? Both advocate for free-market, small-government, libertarian views, so that seems a bit odd. Regardless, it's still only one usable review, and NBOOK calls for two and the other coverage is very thin. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Centre for Independent Studies is a right-wing and quasi-libertarian Australian think tank. Its self-published newsletter is unlikely to be a reliable source, and as an organisation it shares many of the same views as the US think tank that published this book. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The other concerns may be reasonable, but one cannot deem the source irrelevant because of the viewpoint of its authors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that it means that the review doesn't count towards this meeting criterion 1 of WP:NBOOK (a guideline I generally dislike given it sets an awfully low bar for notability). Like-minded think tanks reviewing one another's books in their newsletters doesn't contribute to the books being notable. If a Centre for Independent Studies employee/associate had authored a review published in an independent source (eg, a newspaper) it would be different. Nick-D (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The author of the book review is a noted academic, not a "Centre for Independent Studies employee/associate". "Self-published newsletter"? I see no evidence that the publication's aims is simply to detail the doings of the Centre for Independent Studies - so it is not a "newsletter". "Self published" is meaningless. Of course it is self published - it is the journal of the organization! The Times and The New York Times are also self-published! Also, saying that this thinktank and the publisher or authors of the book share the same viewpoints is like saying Bolsheviks and National Socialists shared the same viewpoints because they both liked oppressing people and building grandiose neoclassical architectural pastiches! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If curious, I found the entire article on the journal's website as a PDF here: . It's more critical than the summary implied, but only as a matter of degree. I may be reading this wrong, but it looks like Worldcat lists three or four libraries that keep physical copies of Policy . This suggests to me that its a very minor journal or newsletter. Grayfell (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Curro2 (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete It's a myth that this meets NBooks or GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's in only 28 libraries according to WorldCat Can't possibly be influential it f it is that poorly known. Not even worth a redirect to the author.  DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete. I've looked at all the external links presented in this discussion, and I'm not seeing anything that establishes notability. Even if one considers the Policy piece an acceptable, third-party review, that's only one; and WP:BKCRIT is not satisfied by a single review in an obscure publication. Deor (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Sourcing simply not strong enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2016 (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.