Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Real McCain


 * 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 Cliff_Schecter.  MBisanz  talk 00:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Real McCain

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged with notability concerns since 2009. Still seems non-notable. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dat GuyTalkContribs 23:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: So far it's slow going. I did find this article, but it's predominantly about McCain himself. Schecter was interviewed about it and the book is mentioned a few times, but I'm not entirely sure if this is enough to establish the source as an in-depth RS about the book specifically. I do need to note that the HuffPo article likely wouldn't be considered independent since Schecter has a HuffPo blog. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Still slow going. I found this book review, but it's through the MidWest Book Review, which has been considered dubious at best ever since they started openly requesting fees for review. Initially it was just e-book, but now it's "ebooks, pre-publication manuscripts, galleys, uncorrected proofs, ARCs, and pdf files". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I found mention here, but it's trivial at best since it's just a brief blurb refuting one of the claims in the book. This one is better since it's about the book and two others that released at the same time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Cliff_Schecter. The coverage for this is fairly light, all things considered. There's enough here to where this could technically merit its own article, but the coverage mostly centers around claims made by Schecter in the book in question. (At one point one of the claims was mentioned in this academic book.) There's one review but not really anything else. By large the book was passed over by most media. This is already fairly well covered in the main article for Schecter and at present I don't really see where the coverage is really there to justify this having its own article at this point in time. The subsection in Schecter's article could use some work, but by large the whole gist of the coverage is that the book was met with a fairly negative reception and the claims were subject to a lot of criticism, as many questioned their legitimacy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as this is obvious, questionably solid as its own article. SwisterTwister   talk  03:27, 3 February 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.