Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Sixties


 * 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 The Politically Incorrect Guide. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Sixties

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence that I can find that it meets the criteria at WP:NBOOKS Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Why not merge with the series article The Politically Incorrect Guide? Edgepedia (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Indications are that the book is not widely covered by sources outside of Wikipedia. One hit on News, one true hit (the book itself) and two false on Books. One hit (the book itself) on Scholar. There are Google hits, but only press releases and sites advertising the book for sale. The subject shows enough flaws to delete, and I do not rest my arguments on article content, ever. However, it is worth consideration that the article represents a good deal of work in removing PoV content, and work thereafter, maintaining an article that is a beacon for anyone who, like the authors of the article and the book itself, is looking for a WP:SOAPBOX to stand on. Anarchangel (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

**I suppose I'll go ahead and vote to delete as this book doesn't seem to pass the threshold of book notability. Kansan (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Maybe people can sometimes sneak their POV into Wikipedia, but they have to try harder than this. It will hardly come as a surprise to many people that most Americans supported the Vietnam war, or that sections of the anti-war movement were for victory to the Vietcong. PatGallacher (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Some of the other books in the series do have their own article, as you can see at Politically Incorrect Guide. It may well be the case that some of them are more likely to attract controversy and media discussion (i.e. AIDS denialism in the P.I. Guide to Science... yikes) and thus be more notable, but as there already are several stand-alone articles relating to this series, we might as well try to look for some sort of bright-line as to what is notable and what is not here. Kansan (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a better option is to redirect to The Politically Incorrect Guide and keep the history. Even if there's nothing notable to merge it's still a plausible search term and the article can be easily restored if there's more coverage later. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. Kansan (talk) 02:14, 30 March 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.