Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Votescam: The Stealing of America


 * 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Some of the earlier "delete" commentators do not seem to have taken into account the sources provided before the relisting. Personally, I find DGG's assessment as a librarian persuasive and recommend that it be taken into account in any later deletion discussion. Sandstein (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Votescam: The Stealing of America

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Book and its authors are not notable It is me i think (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * delete It is me i think (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: No references provided, and also too much personal opinions. Dwilso  06:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable sources and a non-notable book. The article claims "The book was banned at major book chains", but does not list which ones to back up the statement.  STORMTRACKER    94  Go Irish! 11:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete ...and who published the book? Does it have an ISBN?  Did some book chains resist the conspiracy and sell the book anyway?  Etc. Mandsford (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Publisher and ISBN are now in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless reliable references are provided.--Berig (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable self-published book. I am about to nominate Kenneth Collier for deletion too.  KleenupKrew (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. already covered above. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: The mass market paperback doesn't crack four MILLION on Amazon's rankings (http://www.amazon.com/Votescam-Stealing-james-M-Collier/dp/B000W3V93M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208875955&sr=8-1).   RGTraynor  14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, for what it's worth, it's ranked #463,361 . Phil Bridger (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: No reliable source.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I make that 9 editors so far who can't even be bothered to do a simple Google Books search before commenting. In the very first hit Gore Vidal devotes 5 pages to discussing this book - non-notable books don't get that sort of treatment - and the other hits also show substantial coverage. And what have Amazon ratings got to do with this? How many books did they sell in 1992? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This book was not on any bestseller lists in 1992 either, nor published by a major publisher, nor the subject of widespread coverage in WP:RS such as The New York Times or CBS News. Mention in 7 fringe conspiracy books doesn't cut it.  Nor does Gore Vidal particularly meet WP:RS. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't find anything in the NYT or CBS, but The Miami Herald had a 1401 word article (I hope that writer got paid for the odd one) in 1993 and I found another reference in a book by Douglas Kellner. I don't accept the statement about Gore Vidal not being a reliable source. We're not arguing the merits of the book's thesis here, but notability. The fact that major writers such as Gore Vidal and Douglas Kellner have noted the book makes it notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisting to allow editors to discuss the sources found by Phil Bridger after other delete opinions have been made. Davewild (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. If Gore Vidal thinks it's woth five pages, I think that establishes notability. Klausness (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Since deletion process commenced, this article has been improved with sourcing which meets WP:BK. IMHO, Gore Vidal, Miami Herald, and Douglas Kellner meet WP:RS criteria. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - my view hasn't changed and remains delete. This is a self-published book that has never had significant sales or influence.  Gore Vidal and Douglas Kellner are notable in their own right but do not meet WP:RS as a source on unrelated topics.  The Miami Herald article was a one time human interest story on an unknown congressional candidate from 1970 and his continuing quixotic crusade to claim vote fraud in his 1970 primary loss to Claude Pepper, which is what this book is.  The book has never been the subject of widespread nor continuing coverage or relevance.  I also notice the Miami Herald article is dated 1983, while this book was not published until 1992.  KleenupKrew (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Of course it is NOT going to get such coverage. From the article, "The book was immediately banned by the major book chains, who listed the book as "out of print" and actively worked to prevent its sale." IT IS A CONSPIRACY. SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: The coverage cited shows notability. Nick Graves (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge content with appropriate article regarding US voting system (especially about election controversies) SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. As the editor who has done the most to defend this article I must say that even a delete decision would be better than such a merge. This article is about a book, not about the subject matter of the book. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources given. I'm kind of disturbed that editors participating in a deletion discussion can't be bothered to check the notability of the subject.  In any case, there's plenty of material written regarding the subject, and that constitutes notability for me.  Celarnor Talk to me  23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep notability established. Hope all those previous delete editors take note and learn to use rather then repeating parrot fashion what has gone before, it rather brings the Afd process into disrepute. SunCreator (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the overall subject of vote fraud may be notable, but not the book. I am unwilling to believe in the reality of the suppression of the book--according to OCLC WOrldCat, its in about 60 public libraries and about 20 academic, but not the really major ones. That's too many for suppression and not enough for importance. Just what would be expected for an attempted popular book that didn't take off. There's no reason even to merge the content--even the supporter of the article opposes that-- not significant enough to be even mentioned at Wikipedia.   I note the "publisher" Victoria Press is an apparently unsuccessful volunteer group trying to raise money to become notable--named after an actual Suffragette printer of the earlier 20th century.   Like the book, they apparently didn't succeed.  Phil, could you summarize just what Vidal says about it (not that his use of this for some reason makes it notable any more than any other reference he might choose to use.) I'm pretty open minded on book articles but this is way below the bar. DGG (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2008 (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.