Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ruse (book)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Move and redirect. On the first read through it seemed that userfy would be the ideal solution. However, the only person that would take it said they would publish as is (I don't know if User:someone else wants it and they last edited in 2003). I would suggest that accusing DGG and Tokyogirl79 are both long time and well respected editors and have not shown any contempt for the policies. So I think that a move, to Ruse (book) and then redirecting it to the author is best. Thus if someone then wants to take over and work on it they can. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Ruse (book)


Though the book is probably notable, the detailed suymmary here is a violation of NOT PLOT,and the paid ewriter who contributed the article seems unwilling to correct this, as can be seen by the extensive discussions on the talk page, and at Articles for deletion/Lo Mein (book).

In effect, this is part of a paid promotion campaign for the writer. An article is probably possible, but the extensive coi of the editor has prevented them from making a proper article, to the extent that I would normally have simply deleted this by G11 except that I have become too involved in the discussion. A declaration under the terms of use is not a free license to write advertising.  DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm the evil COI paid editor here. First of all, why are you quoting the talk page from another article that you've AfD'd, as a source for this article? Yes, I have been paid, in full for writing both book articles in a format suitable for the Wikipedia.  That's the extent of my agreements. There was never an expectation that they would be published, I could submit them and forget them if I wanted to be black-hat about it. I'm here defending my work on my free time.


 * WP:NOTPLOT says that non-fiction book articles should be expanded and novels are to be brief. Furthermore, this is the first I've heard of any corrections needed to Draft:Ruse (book), especially a need to expand the article. The AfC case at hand was only 2 RS references were from "professional reviewers" (Exactly the number required WP:BKCRIT) and I've added references since then. As expressed in just about every communication, the nominator appears to be offended by the insolence of a paid editor referring to the policies and guidelines when other editors move the goal posts, quoting obscure un-cited talk pages.


 * Finally, this is not a campaign, this was an attempt to create a "discriminate collection" under the topic of the notable author Robert Eringer see: "Does a 'discriminate collection of information' not violate the policy?" in WP:IINFO. Any work of Eringer's would fall under WP:BKCRIT #5. 009o9 (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There;s a difference between discriminating and miscellaneous. The attempt to include a book with fewer than a dozen library holdings is a misuse of WP for promotion, and in my opinion justifies removal of the entire campaign, even for the ones somewhat more notable.
 * However, I do not want to be dogmatic about it, and I would probably agree to an inclusion of a paragraph or two about this in a section of the article on the author, whjch I would not for the much lesser work,. I would also  agree to a rewritten article here that did not attempt to recapitulate the biography from the author article. I brought this MfD only because I have very strong'doubts of it being improved; if there is any indication that it will be improved, it could even go  to mainspace.   DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the book, covering ten years of the author's life, does expand upon three sentences from the lede of the author's bio -- which is not expanded upon in the body as the bio is contentious. I've addressed the concerns of the AfC decliner that I have a clear understanding of the objection on the article's talk page.Draft_talk:Ruse_%28book%29 Since the book is autobiographical, I'm not sure what content the nominator wants removed.


 * Draft & userfy to someone else - I'm usually split with COI because if it's still constructive, it's acceptable but if it's clearly non-notable or there are other blatant and concerning violations, it's best to go. In this case, drafting to someone else may be better especially if this book is indeed notable. SwisterTwister   talk  05:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with the idea to draft and userfy to someone else, although I have to admit that I don't really think that this book is notable outside of the author and I ultimately agree with DGG that this would warrant a subsection in the author's article but not an independent article itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BKCRIT #5 does not not require that the book be notable, nor that the author be notable expressly for his writing. Even the AfD nominator states that the book is "probably notable." The nominator is concerned about a "campaign" that is allowable under "discriminate collection" for creators in WP:DISCRIMINATE. As for the nominating editor's accusations of writing advertising, this is a 7 year old autobiography and the other submission was a 15 year old fiction piece. I purposely stayed away from writing about the author's newer titles.


 * The nominator and his friend's contempt for the policies and guidelines are clearly stated in this nominator authored essay,, yet they will not constructively discuss the NBOOK guideline here. -- Cheers -- 009o9 (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep and move to Ruse (book) per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.    From http://www.amazon.com/Ruse-Undercover-Counterintelligence-Robert-Eringer/dp/1597971898: "“Like juicy tales you hear from someone sitting at a seedy bar on a lazy afternoon…Its plot as intriguing as a James Bond movie and its style as straightforward as journalism.”—Santa Barbara News-Press (Santa Barbara News-Press 2008-05-22)"  The book is reviewed on pages 47–48. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ruse to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I have reviewed the article and do not think it is promotional. I support a move to Ruse (book). Cunard (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We'd need to be able to verify the Santa Barbara review to make sure that it is a review. The thing about Amazon is that the reviews on the page are put there by the author and/or publisher and in many instances all they have is a cherry picked quote. I've seen multiple instances with books (or anything that can be sold) where the publisher/author has utilized a quote from something that was not a review, but an offhand quote from a brief mention. I've seen one case where a film company quoted a press release that they released as a review. The first two sources are ones that I'd seen before and ultimately they were about the author's life. That's why I've been saying that it'd ultimately be better to include this as a subsection in the author's article. Autobiographies are pretty difficult to achieve notability for since so much of what the book covers is redundant to the main article for the author. It's usually only when the book has specifically garnered a lot of controversy (other than people saying "the author did this") that the book would warrant an article, as in the case of Bend, Not Break. Two articles talking about the book in relation to the author aren't the strongest sources out there when what we need to do is show how the book is independently notable. Now the journal article is usable and if you can find more like that, then the book would start possibly meriting an article. However again, I'm kind of thinking that ultimately this would be something better covered in the author's article as a subsection. Just because something exists doesn't mean that it merits an individual article and it wouldn't be the first autobiography to have its own subsection in the author's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Santa Barbara Independent article is not merely "talking about the book in relation to the author". It lists the article under "Book Previews". The second paragraph of the article makes it clear this is a review: "Eringer is the author of Ruse, a tale of his own experiences in intelligence operations that puts Ian Fleming’s protagonist to shame. And Eringer’s wit easily trumps the groan-inducing one-liners Bond is known for. His quick and insightful humor makes Ruse an unexpectedly entertaining read; this story of spies and counterintelligence is funnier than most comic novels." This is literary analysis of the book. The review continues with a description of the book's genesis (a publisher approaching Eringer for a book proposal). Here is more literary analysis in the middle of the review: "The best part of the book, however, is the author’s way of recording his constant internal monologue while interspersing it with conversations and events that are going on simultaneously. ... While Eringer takes plenty of well-aimed and often hilarious pot-shots at the Russian powers that were during the Cold War, his attention to detail and spot-on sense of humor are directed at United States intelligence organizations as well." The Studies in Intelligence article is a second review of the book. The reviewer, Hayden B. Peake, has a negative review of the book, saying "The book falls squarely in the 'trust me' category" and "With these slender qualifications, Ruse struggles to attain mediocrity." These two reviews are sufficient to establish notability per Notability. The Santa Barbara News-Press quote is clearly a quote from a review, not a passing mention. But it is not necessary to use it to establish notability since the Santa Barbara Independent and Studies in Intelligence reviews are sufficient. Cunard (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Draft and userfy to someone else/Delete. I have my doubts whether or not this book would pass notability guidelines enough to merit an entry beyond a subsection in the author's article. However I'm not against the idea of a qualified, neutral editor taking charge of the draft. I'm sorry, 009o9, but I do not think that you are capable of writing a neutral, encyclopedic entry in these circumstances and your accusation above of this being unfairly targeted kind of hammers that home. DGG is pretty well respected on Wikipedia and he's not the type that would have a "contempt for the policies and guidelines", nor am I or any of the other people I've seen on participate in anything related to this book/author. That you repeatedly refuse to meet any of us halfway on this kind of makes me wonder about your editing patterns in general. Someone who is truly a neutral editor looking for the best interests of their client would not be doing the things that you are doing now. Not only are you making yourself look bad, but you're making your client look bad as well. Your interpretation of the notability guidelines is just plain wrong in this instance and you've been told that by multiple editors. In other words, your refusal to at least meet people halfway and try to understand what we're saying is kind of making me wonder if this should be brought up to ANI or the paid editing board, since I do think that your current paid editing habits are violating some of Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. This isn't some sort of secret cabal out to get someone, but we do expect that you will edit in a neutral and encyclopedic fashion. If multiple editors are telling you that your current editing style has something wrong with it, then you need to take into consideration that maybe it's not us that is misreading policy. Bluntly put, if your goal is to eventually give yourself enough WP:ROPE to get someone to block you for being the bad sort of paid editor, you're heading in the right direction. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, "I have reviewed the article and do not think it is promotional. I support a move to Ruse (book)." If userfied to me, I will promptly move it to mainspace because I think it establishes notability per Notability and is sufficiently neutral to satisfy the Neutral point of view policy. No one has explained how the article is promotional. Cunard (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the notability of this article as it currently stands and with the sources you've given. Now since you've said that you'd post this article "as is", I have to say that I would strongly disagree with you being the person this is userfied to. If this is sent to the userspace as is it's extremely likely to be sent back to userspace, especially given that another of the author's books (Lo Mein) was deleted based on similar sourcing. If you can find more sourcing like the journal review and verify that the Santa Barbara source is legit, then that'd be different - but I strongly oppose approving a page based on the current sourcing and I strongly oppose you being the person who gets to have the userspace copy, given that you're approving of extremely weak sourcing. This needs better sourcing and if you can verify the SB source then that'd be great, as long as this article got cleaned up. However all you have is an Amazon quote, which I've said is not enough to verify it as a source for the above reasons. (IE, that we cannot verify that this is a review and not just the publisher/author quoting an offhand remark, which is an extremely common sales technique.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you'd said that you'd wait for more sources or try to find a better source then that'd be one thing, but there's a reason that several people have had issues with how the article was laid out and the sources that were used. Approving it "as is" would just be suicide for the article and would not be in the best interests of the article or the book's author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, all of this started because I initially declined the article because the sourcing was fairly weak and didn't show where this would warrant an article outside of the author, given that this is an autobiography and that the largest bulk of the sources talked about the author with the book being a side mention. As mentioned above, most autobiographies don't achieve independent notability and most can be summarized in the author's article. At best what we have here is an assertion that an offhand quote on Amazon is a review and a journal article. We need to be able to verify this and I'm very disappointed that 009o9 has apparently never bothered to contact anyone with any sort of news clipping to prove that it was. As someone who is in direct contact with the author, he's in the best place to get this information and supply it upon demand. I've told him that he could do this and he hasn't done this. Rather, he's argued that we should accept the current weak sourcing. This is probably one of the most minimal effort things he could have done and he didn't do this. He instead chose to take a far harder and more difficult route, a route that makes him look fairly bad as a result. If he can't or won't contact the author and ask for this clipping, it makes me wonder how much control he really has over his articles, given that he's not willing to contact the author and say that there is a chance that a page may not make it to the mainspace and that they need more sourcing. This is something that you absolutely need to be able to do in a COI situation and it's one that I've had to do myself. It's not fun or easy to do this, but 009o9 needs to be able to do this to show that he's editing in a way that shows that he's not just writing to suit his clients and trying to make a paycheck. So far he's not done this and doesn't seem to show any inclination that he would otherwise have done this. Heck, if he'd just done this when I'd asked him to do this earlier, I probably would have approved the article and just asked him to clean it up. But again, he hasn't and he's accused DGG and others of impropriety and made a rather pointy attempt to change policy at NBOOK to make it more difficult to pass NBOOK. (Sort of as a "so there, you meanieheads" gesture.) This puts all of his edits into serious question that he's not willing to at least do the barest minimum to try to meet notability guidelines. I mean, most authors keep clippings of every review they've ever received and it doesn't look like this book received a huge amount. It'd be extremely likely that Eringer would have a clipping that he'd be willing to upload (since it's in his best interests to have an article) and mail out, so I'm not sure why 009o9 has been unwilling to do this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but I would like to see more sourcing and I think that approving this as is would only make it nearly impossible for this book to have an article in the future (if it was taken to AfD and I'll take it to AfD if this is accepted "as is" without proof that the review on Amazon is usable, given the amount of people who have called the article out on its weak sourcing), especially given 009o9's behavior and how easily he could have solved this issue earlier. (Given that Lo Mein was deleted on similarly weak sourcing, it's extremely likely that this book would be deleted through AfD.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Editor Note Agree, draft and userfy to another editor. I have no illusions about my writing, I would be very interested to see what needs to be done here to get through AfC. Apparently, Tokyogirl79 has not been keeping up with the progress. I exposed the page numbers per her advice, only to have the next AfC decliner say they should not be in there. Additionally, in the other AfD, it was determined that college newspapers could not be used for reviews, so more inaccurate(?) advice from TokyoGirl. A couple of the sources have been updated, and the professional reviews un-cited from the Editorial Reviews section when I discovered the blanket ban on using Amazon as a source.
 * REVIEWS


 * United States Central Intelligence Agency
 * Santa Barbara Independent
 * The book is then cited in...

A review from Santa Barbara News-Press (2008-05-22) can't be used because Eringer later wrote for them and the peer reviews by Don Bohning and Robert Burton are unusable because they only exist in the Editorial Reviews section on Amazon at this point. 009o9 (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post
 * The Daily Caller
 * The Record
 * The Miami Herald
 * "A Counterintelligence Cold Case File: The Fourth Mole", by Mike Mattson, 2009 Intelligencer Journal / The Institute of World Politics.
 * No, I said that some college newspapers can be used as sources. Those ultimately depend on what newspaper you're referring to. The average college newspaper would not be usable, however if the newspaper is one that has won several awards and/or has been cited in multiple, independent RS as being reliable, those can be used. For example, The Harvard Crimson would be considered a reliable source because they're extremely well known for their reliability and quality. That was not meant to be a blanket statement that all newspapers would be reliable. That said, I'm glad to see that you're replying with some sources. However the thing is that the CIA would be a WP:PRIMARY source (since he worked with them). The Santa Barbara source is good, but I'd like to see more before it could really show that this book would merit a mention outside of the main article. I'd like to see one more than this at the very least. Can you bring up the Santa Barbara News-Press source via an internet article or supply a clipping upon request?  Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ultimately what we have here are two reviews and some sources that predominantly talk about the author, with the book being mentioned in passing. I really don't think that this is strong enough to keep an article on this basis and I'd like at least one more review to be verified before it could really start being strong enough to stand on its own. Even then it's still kind of shaky considering that all of this is already in the author's article. I'm worried about the COI, but I'm also worried about redundancy. I know that he is paying you for making these articles and that if they aren't written, you cannot be paid this money (at least not in its full amount) but you really need to take sourcing and redundancy into account when making articles. Not everything needs to have its own article and you should not give off the impression that your main purpose here is to fulfill a client's request. That's why so many people contest paid editing, since it's so easy for people to try to bend Wikipedia policy because it benefits them financially. I think that your initial intentions may have been good, but I really think that you're letting your COI blind you because you want to get the paycheck and keep a reputation with your clients as someone who can make articles. Now as far as another editor goes, I'd have to say that I'd prefer that it be someone who is known for being a stickler with articles and isn't someone who has taken part in this AfD. The thing about the person being a stickler is that if it passes their criteria, then you know that it's going to pass without people saying that it fails notability or is too redundant to another article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * First, I've been paid in full, I bill to write in a format suitable for the Wikipedia, much like a paralegal writes court documents. I don't represent to anybody that any article can be published, or that I can protect it from other editors. My terms are published here. The client is free to use the writing anywhere (s)he sees fit, including the Wikipedia if it can get through AfC. Second, Eringer never worked for the CIA, nor the FBI as an employee, he did work for a former director of the CIA and he worked on a contract basis for the FBI -- but we are not sourcing them here. Third, it does not matter if I have a COI, which you mention so often in your wall of text. The case at hand: is the COI declared, is the writing neutral, does the topic pass WP:BKCRIT? 009o9 (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the Santa Barbara News Press review is unusable because it goes along with a story of Eringer taking a job with them . Both links are subscription, but there is enough exposed to make a judgment.  Eringer never worked for the CIA and all of the CIA (2008) reviews were written by: Hayden B. Peake is the curator of the CIA Historical Intelligence Collection. He served in the Directorate of Science and Technology and the Directorate of Operations. He is a frequent contributor to this and other intelligence journals.  Do you have any questions or comments about my writing? The article's tone? Or are you going to keep attacking me and the references? --Cheers-- 009o9 (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I rejected the most recent submission. The WaPo citation is a fleeting blog mention. I can't comment on what sounds like a limited engagement from the paid author who does not seem to have the interest (or additional payment) to try to improve the article, but I'd support deleting it. I think if the book was notable, there's be more coverage, not digging so deep for askew mentions. Wxidea (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @Wxidea First, the WaPo is the outlet that ran with the Menendez "shortchanged" prostitutes story without doing any background on it. So yes, with egg on their faces, their coverage of the story is going to be thin -- they wanted it to go away. This book was was the reason other outlets took a harder look at the story. So, are you really a paid reviewer as you stated in your decline? How does that work? 009o9 (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi @009o9, I realize now that when I wrote "As a paid reviewer,..." on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ruse_(book) that could be misunderstood. I meant that to be you. Not me. I meant to say that since you clearly know Wikipedia well, I didn't need to gently explain principles of notability, citation, etc. Again, sorry that could have been construed to mean I am paid. I am not. Wxidea (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Wxidea, thanks for clearing that up. I do volunteer occasionally at AfC, but never for pay. So not a paid reviewer in that sense. In AfC, I generally try to help with a notable topic, give the newbies an example of persondata, default sort, infobox etc. My paid stuff is usually fixing existing or creating bios.  My problem here, is that if the consensus has changed then policies and guidelines need to be re-written. This moving the goalpost after the fact is BS. --Cheers--009o9 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again @009o9, to be clear, I have nothing against paid contributions. In whatever format, I don't believe that Wikipedia should be purely the product of unpaid volunteers. That position creates all kinds of problems, not least of which is a broad exclusion of the education, institutional (e.g., museum), and non profit sectors. And I have no problem with your various paid roles, and I don't even care a lot about disclosure, though it's helpful just to help know where you might be coming from. I do think that as a paid/professional contributor, who clearly has an agenda, you can expect a little less sweet-talk. A little less "great job with your article, there are just a few things left to do and you'll..." and a little more, "still not NPOV, sorry." Also, maybe I interpreted wrong, but in this case, it sniffed like you were doing a whitewashing job for a client, complete with padding the encyclopedia with books of marginal notability. I might be totally wrong, but if I am wrong, it's because you have not yet dug up good sources. Not sure if that clarified anything. I still think (barring any great citations) the book's page should be deleted. Wxidea (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Wxidea -- I can only go by what the guidelines state, there is nothing in the Criteria about "great" citations, hundreds of listings in WorldCat, handfuls of reviews, or that only some college newspapers will be considered RS (even if the colleges have nationally ranked journalism programs). I made an evaluation to do two articles, based upon the guidelines as written only to find they mean nothing here. The references are what they are and organized at the bottom of this page, and did a reorganization of the Draft. 009o9 (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Tokyogirl79, the Santa Barbara Independent review and the Studies in Intelligence review both provide significant coverage about the book. I analyzed the two sources to show how they were reviews of the book and not merely covering the book incidentally in relation to the author. Notability (books) says that a book is notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." I have provided two such sources. Again, it is not necessary to verify the Santa Barbara News-Press review when we already have two other reviews that meet the books notability guideline. You have failed to rebut my analysis of either of these sources, instead writing a 900+ word response attacking 009o9 and claiming that I am unqualified to review the article because I come to a different conclusion than you. You have also failed to explain how the article is promotional in violation of Neutral point of view. Please address editors' arguments instead of personally attacking the editors themselves. Cunard (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal attack. You said that the article was fine as it was and I disagree. The article is better than what it was when I'd first edited it, but the style and synopsis sections need to be merged into one section. It's also largely redundant to the author's article. As far as the sources go, the sources need to be strong enough to show that it would not be redundant to the pre-existing article on Eringer. While NBOOK does say "two sources" most people do not consider that to mean any two sources and it's very rare that an AfD would close as a "keep" on a book that has only two reviews. For the most part you need at least 3-4 reviews in order to keep a book article, especially if the content is already covered in an author's article - which this is. The unsaid thing about the whole "two sources" thing is that it depends on the strength of the sources and what they claim. (IE, if you have two sources and they're claiming that the book has won a major award, that'd be something that could cause the book to pass on those guidelines, whereas two reviews are fairly weak in comparison and would require more coverage.) I think that you are far too lenient in this case, especially as there has already been an article about a book by this author deleted in the mainspace via AfD, where people are already aware that there are articles about this author's works that have notability and COI issues. Admitting it "as is" would make it very, very easily nominated and deleted, which would make it extremely difficult for it to be re-created without twice the amount of sources. As far as 009o9 goes, my complaint with him was that I'd given him an easy out for all of this and he didn't take it. All he had to do is supply additional sources for the book, which he should have been able to access extremely easily since he has (more or less) a direct link to the author. It's extremely common for authors to keep clippings of their news coverage. Heck, just about anyone who is in the news for putting out a work (film, book, music, etc) tends to keep clippings and are more than happy to try to make them available to others. However rather than approach the author and ask for these clippings, he chose to argue that the article should have been kept as it was. Essentially what he was telling me through his actions was that he didn't want to do that extra work. If he'd just done that to begin with and gotten that third review, as I said above, I probably would've approved it, although I still maintain that it is still largely redundant to the pre-existing article on the author. What I want to see here is enough coverage to where someone couldn't just swoop in and say that we accepted an unnecessary article that could've been covered just as succinctly in the main article, especially as the coverage for it is so insanely light. Heck, the most recent editor that reviewed the draft is a self professed inclusionist and they declined it based on sourcing. That really shows me that what we need here is more sourcing, not to throw the article into the mainspace where it'd be devoured at some point in time (if not sooner) and cause its chances to get recreated drop to practically zero. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The unsaid thing about the whole "two sources" thing is that it depends on the strength of the sources and what they claim. – the sources are one newspaper and one peer-reviewed journal. These are strong sources that give detailed reviews of the book. While NBOOK does say "two sources" most people do not consider that to mean any two sources and it's very rare that an AfD would close as a "keep" on a book that has only two reviews. For the most part you need at least 3-4 reviews in order to keep a book article, especially if the content is already covered in an author's article - which this is. – if this restriction on "two sources" were the consensus, it would be documented at Notability (books). But it is not documented because it is not the consensus. The unsaid thing about the whole "two sources" thing is that it depends on the strength of the sources and what they claim. (IE, if you have two sources and they're claiming that the book has won a major award, that'd be something that could cause the book to pass on those guidelines, whereas two reviews are fairly weak in comparison and would require more coverage.) – the second criterion of Notability (books) is "The book has won a major literary award." Since the guideline clearly states that either "two sources" or a "major literary award" (or three other criteria) establishes notability, this disproves your claim that the consensus is that "two sources" is acceptable if and only if a major award is also won. Instead, "two sources" are sufficient. While I would prefer more sources, we have two. And per the guideline, two is sufficient. The rest of your comment about improving the article (e.g. "the style and synopsis sections need to be merged into one section" or "All he had to do is supply additional sources for the book") is not a reason to delete the draft. Editing policy. While I recognize that the draft is imperfect, I think it meets Neutral point of view and Notability (books), so I think it is ready for mainspace. Cunard (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a reason to delete, hence why I'm open for it going to someone who will be more strict with it. As far as the whole consensus thing, while it'd be grand if we could guarantee that every article going to AfD with weak sourcing would survive, history has shown that this is not the case. Like it or not, people are strict at AfD - especially if the article goes to AfD with a history. For example, there's already awareness at AfD that a paid editor is making articles for Ehringer's books and that they were approved via AfC. The AfD closed as delete, which will loom over this article like a specter. It also doesn't help that AfC has an absolutely horrible reputation at AfD because so darn many AfC articles are brought to AfD, and it's rare that an AfC article will survive AfD. This doesn't include the fact that most book articles only survive AfD unless they've won a huge award or have received a metric ton of sources. So basically what we have here is an article that already has a huge deck stacked against it: it's written by a paid editor, has fairly flimsy sourcing, its contents are already summed up for the most part in the parent article, a book by the same author and editor has already been deleted at AfD, and articles about books already have a very difficult time surviving AfD without a huge amount of book-specific sources. On top of all of that, if the article is deleted, you reduce the chances of it getting recreated substantially since you'd have to provide almost twice the coverage to really persuade the deleting admin or DRV that it couldn't be summed up on the author's page. Even if I were to agree not to nominate it (and I'm very tempted to do that just to save myself further headache), you're pretty much sending out an article that (as it is now) already has a lot stacked against it. Like I said above, this would be essentially giving it a death sentence when this could be solved far more easily by getting at least one more book review. It's not great to have an article with only three reviews and no other coverage that is specific towards the book (instead of being more general about its author's life), but that'd be enough to hold off deletion until/if the guidelines are made more strict in the future - and it's easier to make things more strict than less strict. Case in point: it was only recently that lists like the NYT Bestselling list were even considered to be something that could give notability and that took a fairly long time to get rolling. That's why I want someone else to do it: because I know that they'd be willing to hold out until they get that third review, which would raise the article's chances of surviving on Wikipedia substantially. You could accept it now, but how long do you think that this would last? Its only true chance of survival would rely upon it not getting noticed. I just think that this could be solved a lot more easily with that third review, which 009 should presumably have access to via the author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not great to have an article with only three reviews and no other coverage that is specific towards the book (instead of being more general about its author's life), but that'd be enough to hold off deletion until/if the guidelines are made more strict in the future - and it's easier to make things more strict than less strict. – we do not go by what we hope the guidelines will be in the future. We instead go by the current guidelines which require "two sources", not "three sources". You again make the unsupported assertion that the Santa Barbara Independent review and the Studies in Intelligence review are primarily about the author's life instead of being about the book itself. I explained above why that was not the case. Even if I were to agree not to nominate it (and I'm very tempted to do that just to save myself further headache), you're pretty much sending out an article that (as it is now) already has a lot stacked against it. Like I said above, this would be essentially giving it a death sentence when this could be solved far more easily by getting at least one more book review. – there is nothing "stacked against" the article. There is no "death sentence" against the article. At Articles for deletion/The Racket (book), two sources are provided. There is a strong consensus that this is sufficient to pass Notability (book). I expect the same result for this article if you or anyone else were to nominate it for deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I still stand by what I wrote. I still think that this is too light for it to merit an entry outside of the author's article, given that the bulk of this is already covered in the author's article. I also need to note that the article in question that you're referring to is not exactly the same as this book, as the one you're referring to is not an autobiography. I do think that two reviews is too light to really warrant an article and I'm kind of surprised at how that specific AfD is turning out, to be honest. I've seen others that have closed as a redirect on better sources. In any case, I'm not going to change my mind on this and I still think that this needs stronger sources to show that this autobiography warrants an article outside of the main article on the author. Right now the sourcing is weak and the article is largely redundant. Also in response to the comment below, the CIA review would be primary for reasons I've stated elsewhere. (IE, the book has connections to the CIA, FBI, so anything posted by someone from there on the official sites would be considered primary.) I also wish that rather than re-post the same sources, you would look for the review from the other Santa Barbara paper listed on Amazon. Providing that other review would really, really help out greatly. The author should have access to this material in some format, even if it is just a news clipping. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I figure I'm going to take a page out of DGG's book and just stop responding. My opinion is not going to change and at this point we're just going back and forth saying the same stuff. 009o9 either can't or won't post anything beyond the sources he has already used and I already know where you stand on this. I firmly disagree with this and at present I still believe that there isn't enough to show where this book is notable outside of the author's page, given that it's an autobiography and the content is already covered in the author's page - nor is the book specific coverage heavy enough to really show where we need another page stating the same information. That's my viewpoint. It's not going to budge. At this point we just have to wait for this to close and see what the closing admin thinks. If they want to endorse its creation then so be it. If they want to send it to someone who will be stricter and raise its chances of survival (let alone long term survival), then so be it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * MfD is not the place for adjudicating notability disputes. AfD is. The outcome of Articles for deletion/The Racket (book) where two sources were provided is a clear "keep". I do not see why it would be different here given that there is plenty of material in the two sources to justify a standalone article. Moving the review information to the author's article would be undue weight. I would move this to mainspace now were it not at MfD because while not perfect, this article passes Notability, Notability (books), and Neutral point of view. I have asked for closure. MfD should not be used as a tool to block policy-compliant articles from being published. Cunard (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * One last comment: I wouldn't have mentioned notability if not for the fact that you were earlier endorsing what came across to me as unconditional acceptance of the sourcing and article. It wasn't until I pushed that you started saying that the article still needed work. I have to again say that I think that this is not enough for an article and that it's redundant to the main article on Eringer, especially since this information is already in the author's article. I don't really see where adding a small subsection for the book would be undue weight and again, this has been done before with multiple articles where there's been an autobiography that received little to no specific book coverage. Heck, we've also merged fictional series into an author's main page, as was the case with Scott Meyer (author), whose works also had issues with individual notability. Adding subsections does not mean that it'll be undue weight. I also have to add that there have been cases where we could make multiple articles for different versions of the same book. For example, there was an AfD for a different version of a children's book. There had been evidence that one specific version of the book could merit its own article, but the question was why was it really warranted? Does having an article on every version of something (especially since the information is already elsewhere) really mean that we should have a different entry? My answer to that was no - there's really no purpose to having a million different articles if we can sum this up in one article. The thing is, just because you can create a dozen articles doesn't always mean that you should. The coverage has predominantly covered the author, with only a handful of sources that specifically focus on the book itself, so there's really not much need to create an individual page for the book except to include a reception section and to be honest... that's something that could be summed up in about one sentence in a subsection that talks about this specific book or maybe even a subsection that gives information about his publishing career in general. (Bibliography sections don't have to be a plain list of books.) If this had been a paper encyclopedia, odds are that they would have cut through the miscellany to make one article that gave more comprehensive coverage of everything. I don't really currently see the need to make multiple articles for something that's already fairly well covered at the author's article. And now I really will try to stop replying. I just really think that the coverage here is far too light to warrant an individual article at this point in time and this article is very redundant to the already existing article on the author, which covers the pertinent topics in the book. There's not much to add that couldn't be summed up in one paragraph in the author's page, which will make everything more succinct. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Here's my basic argument here. It wasn't meant to be an argument about notability, but this has become one. Ultimately I'd declined the initial article because the sourcing was extremely weak and the topic was very well covered at the author's article. I'd asked 009, a paid editor, to find more sources. I don't see where he's really ever done that, nor do I see where he's taken advantage of the fact that he is in contact (to some degree) with the author, who could presumably give him these extra sources. This concerned me because if I don't know if this is a case of can't or won't. If he can't get in contact with these people or there are no more sources, then that's one thing (although still troubling). However if it's that he won't do this because he's afraid of reprisal from them, then that's actually more concerning since a paid editor needs to be unafraid to approach their client and ask for more sourcing and/or broach the subject that their article may not be able to pass notability guidelines at the very least. That's what concerned me the most here and I'll restate that I probably wouldn't have pushed this much on a merge if not for 009's seeming refusal or inability to approach his client for additional information. As someone who does edit with a COI occasionally, I understand that this is a difficult and even scary thing to do... however you need to be able to do it. (Heck, I remember telling my boss once that I couldn't create an article for someone because all we had were primary sources, which didn't go over well. But I had to do it.) You also need to be able to be transparent about your ability to get these sources if someone asks and I'm troubled that despite me repeatedly asking 009 to approach his client and find one single newspaper source, he's never responded to that one request. That really, really concerns me because I'm of the mindset that if someone's asking a COI/paid editor to find a source and approach a client, they need to be able to do this or to at least explain why they cannot do this. If it's a matter of them being afraid of being fired, then that's understandable - but they need to be honest about that. If they cannot do this with a client then that poses a huge, huge issue with their edits since there's no way that you can be non-partial and transparent if you are unable/unwilling to approach your client and discuss this to some degree on Wikipedia. How can someone really edit neutrally with something like that over their head? I don't mean that to sound like an attack, because it's not and I view it as a valid concern. In any case, I really think that given that the content here is already covered in the author's article, that making a subsection isn't an awful thing in this instance. I don't think that this should have a separate entry without at least one more review at the very least - and I have my doubts about that being enough, given that this is an autobiography and at this point the only real reason to have this article separate would be to have a review section - and the reception for this wasn't really heavy. As far as the desire for a strict editor, that's because let's face it: a lot of people view AfC as a joke, despite many attempts to improve its image on Wikipedia. It has a terrible reputation on Wikipedia, so AfC articles tend to be viewed with more scrutiny on Wikipedia than an article that's created randomly. Add on to this that it's made by a paid editor, is redundant to the main article, and that one other book by the same author has already been deleted? That means that the article is going to be very heavily scrutinized. We need to have someone go through this with a fine toothed comb and really give it a good hard look over and make sure that it passes notability guidelines on very strong sourcing, otherwise it's going to likely be chalked up as another article that passed through AfC that probably shouldn't have. If it passes through AfC with a strict editor known for being picky, that would give it a better, stronger foot out the door. I know that this is long, but I did want to make one last note for the closing admin since I know that this MfC is a rambling mess. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not dispute that the article could be improved, but since Neutral point of view is met and Wikipedia is a work in progress, that is not a reason to deny creation. Nor should recreation be denied because of your unsupported view that Notability (books)'s requirement for "two sources" should be "more than two sources". The AfD Articles for deletion/The Racket (book) has shown that "two sources" is sufficient. Per policy, What Wikipedia is not, so what a paper encyclopedia would do in this case is irrelevant. The coverage has predominantly covered the author, with only a handful of sources that specifically focus on the book itself, so there's really not much need to create an individual page for the book except to include a reception section and to be honest... that's something that could be summed up in about one sentence in a subsection that talks about this specific book or maybe even a subsection that gives information about his publishing career in general. – that "a handful of sources ... specifically focus on the book itself" means that the book is notable Notability (books). The view that the subject is notable but might be better covered in the author's article should not be addressed at MfD. I also wish that rather than re-post the same sources, you would look for the review from the other Santa Barbara paper listed on Amazon. – the review by Yunte Huang is under a paywall at http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=LIFE&ID=565299846798508055&Archive=true. It says: "REVIEW FROM HERE : Spy true stories as gripping as fiction Yunte Huang May 18, 2008 6:18 AM RUSE: UNDERCOVER WITH FBI COUNTERINTELLIGENCE Nonfiction By Robert Eringer" I cannot find a non-paywall version. Does this third source satisfy your "three sources" criteria? Cunard (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI: I've taken to reading Articles for deletion/Log/Today there's a few salvageable articles that I've adopted. I have two AfD's that I personally wrote, a merge and the book deletion, which I'm considering appealing. Now, does anybody really think I haven't contacted the author to see if he has copies of his reviews? Finally, I have no illusions about my writing, nice to finally have one of the objections plainly stated.009o9 (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC) FYI Looks like Bob Menendez part of this story is not over, an indictment was brought against him on Monday 8/24/15. He's still claiming the Cubans are framing him.009o9 (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's recap the reviews that we do have.
 * 1) The book has been reviewed by possibly the most renowned expert in the genre -- Hayden B. Peake is the curator of the CIA Historical Intelligence Collection.
 * 2) The other "usable" review is from the competing newspaper Santa Barbara Independent
 * Interviewed about the contents of the book (i.e., News, not in an advertising capacity, he was contacted to verify the book's content concerning the Cuban plot against Menendez.)
 * 1) The Miami Herald
 * 2) The Record
 * Other RS sources that have noticed the book aka Notability
 * 1) A quarter dozen cites concerning the Senator Menendez setup issue
 * 2) A weak source that notes that Edward Lee Howard's memoirs were published because of the history depicted in this book
 * Unusable reviews
 * 1) Unusable review because he wrote for them shortly thereafter Santa Barbara News-Press
 * 2) Unusable because it only exists on Amazon and book seller sites —Don Bohning, author of The Castro Obsession: U.S. Covert Operations Against Cuba, 1959-1965
 * I took another pass at the draft, thinking I was going to shorten it, of course it's longer now and I realized I had buried (or not fully explained) some historical points of interest. -- 009o9 (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)  P.S. There is a three sentence mention in Eringer's bio's lede concerning this roughly  10 year period, but it would be impossible to adequately cover the book in the bio.  009o9 (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2015 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.