Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Myth of the Rational Voter


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 09:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The Myth of the Rational Voter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A long article, short on genuinely reliable independent sources. Half the sources are the author himself, the balance are generally trivial, or unreliable (e.g. Volokh). The article was substantially expanded by a user who appears to have some relationship with the author, Caplan, and has promoted Caplan extensively in other articles on Wikipedia. This book does not appear to be influential and some of the reviews are - ahem - unflattering. One fo the sources is actually just a comment by someone saying they haven't read it! Guy (Help!) 07:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Whether the reviews are flattering or not is absolutely irrelevant. All reviews a book receives count toward its being notable. If a book receives lots of reviews calling it total crap, and no positive reviews at all, then it probably is notable and we should have an article about it, because of the large number of reviews. Things are notable because they get attention in reliable sources, and there is no rule the attention has to be positive (whether the reviews themselves are well-informed or written by people who know what they are talking about is likewise irrelevant). Possible COI issues are also not a reason for deletion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Numerous reviews by mainstream outlets suggest notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily passes WP:NBOOK. AusLondonder (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Widely reviewed and discussed. The already-cited, detailed article by Louis Menand in The New Yorker  pretty much cinches the case by itself, and there is plenty more evident in the most basic searches. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG. --  Dane talk  02:58, 24 March 2017 (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.