Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Obama Will Win in 2008 & 2012


 * 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. Those arguing to keep the article have failed to present arguments based on Wikipedia policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Why Obama Will Win in 2008 & 2012

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional page of a book lacking notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has a lot of sources listed but the article lacks good ones to show notability. Ones by the author are not independent. Some are just listings. Steeles book does not cover this book. The Freedomist and Black News are both the same press release. Only one that might be considered good is the Village Voice but it is just an opinion piece in a blog that doesn't really provide non-trivial coverage of the book. No better sources were found by me. Nothing in Notability (books) satisfied. The repeated press release and the multiple listings suggests bombardment is happening to make the book look notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable self-published book. (BookSurge is a "print on demand" self-publishing wing of Amazon that was later renamed/merged into CreateSpace.) There's no reliable sources that show notability and the sources remaining on the article do not show notability in the slightest. (I removed the worst of the links.) None of the claims in the article are backed up by reliable or non-primary sources and smells of WP:PUFFERY. If there was any call for a speedy delete category for books, this would be a prime example of why we need a speedy, as there's clearly no notability here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete flaky sources, and apart from the self-pub book, virtually uncited/uncitable. Advertising, too soon, self publicity, whatever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per reasons above. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I vote against deletion. The prestige of the book publisher is irrelevant to the merits of the book itself, which has an important endorsement from a Columbia University political science professor. The book was published on the Internet, is included in the on-line scholarly paper collection at a major university and physical copies were printed in 2007 by Booksurge only as a compliment to the electronic edition, which is still available on-line for free. The article is not premature because in 2007 it did use science to predict the election outcomes of 2008 and 2012. DazzBand (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DazzBand (talk • contribs) — DazzBand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do not delete. The book is not for sale and the article is not an advertising piece. Deletion of the article is advocated by people with no academic credentials or knowledge about the book topic and they have never seen the book. Self publishing: The book was a volunteer effort written for and distributed on the Internet. It is non-commerical in nature and not intended for the general public. It is still available for free on the Internet and has been downloaded by thousands of readers world wide on Scribd. Physical copies were "self-published" only for distribution to the Library of Congress and VIPs at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in 2008. Please let academics decide whether the article is factual and the book noteworthy. Stop deleting article references. Deletion of the article is censorship. DazzBand (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The book is an academic work indexed in Google Scholar through GetCITED. Not all books get reviewed by The New York Times, especially intellectual ones like this one. I've seen many similar cases on Wikipedia, thus considering that there are no notability related issues for this book. And indeed, the article is not premature, the book was published in 2007, before 2008 elections. Ardsarea (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The book is an e-book and therefore is not supported by much of the notability apparatus set forth to prove Wiki noteworthiness. Not being in print, it doesn't sit in "important" collections and it will not be in libraries or catalogs except online. Wiki's noteworthiness guidelines are behind the times on this as the publishing world evolves, and questions about whether a work meets them should be secondary to questions of the content of the work itself. As an academic work with implications for sociology, economics, and politics, it is noteworthy and should be kept. jdc_wms (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Being an acedemic work does not make a book notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable. WP is not here to document every self-published book.  Regarding some of the claims made in favor of keeping, Sanz is a financial analyst and essayist/journalist, not an academic.  Mention of the listing on the UPenn site seems to imply that it has academic credibility; however, that site is simply a library of free online ebooks, and just contains a link to the book on Scribd.  KarlM (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable self-published book. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:41, 29 March 2012 (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.