Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The American Militant Nationalist Manifesto
- 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- The American Militant Nationalist Manifesto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. The prod rationale was "Self-published book, only review published on authors' own site. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK." and I agree with that assessment. I cannot find a single mention of the book in any reliable source. bonadea contributions talk 21:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Almost no coverage that isn't directly related to the book, fails WP:GNG. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, as original PRODder. No independent coverage. A comment on the talk page promises two more reviews, but given the extreme fringyness of this book and its authors/publishers, it is unlikely that these will be independent reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, There is no evidence to suggest that the reviewer, Richard Noegel,is not independent just because his review was copied and pasted onto the author's site from another site. This mistake in use of sources has been addressed so that the citation comes from the original publication source. It is also noted that Richard Noegel is retired from academia, an accomplished writer/editor, and a very reliable source that has authored multiple reviews. The original PRODder's accusation of "extreme fringyness" of authors/book/publisher is made without any genuine substance being presented. Vandal Brothers LLC is a legitimate publishing company in good standing, and the authors hold legitimate graduate degrees from a renowned university. Faustianvoid (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment So the review was "independent" because the reviewer posted it on Amazon? (As an aside, note that just copying it to your own website is a violation of Amazon's copyright). As for the fringe remark, I am aware that the political debate in the US is more, let's say, "robust" than in most other civilized countries. Call me crazy, but on their website these authors claim that the GOP has "been coopted by liberal elites who wish to see the true American people robbed of their birthright", claim that US presidents are "chosen by a mob of idiots", call the current US president a "traitorous swine", and call for democracy to be abolished ("Who Cares about democracy!"), so, yes, I call that "fringe" thinking. --Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Nothing suggests this can become even a minimally better article. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 10 January 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.