Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress

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. Sandstein 06:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK -- haminoon (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not reliable secondary sources that substantiate this book's notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the Notability guidelines, "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." The book is the subject of a Western Journalism Center broadcast and a review at the American Thinker. I updated the page to reflect this. ReneeNal (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-trivial excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable." None of the reviews come close to meeting this criteria. -- haminoon (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The American Thinker is perfectly legitimate source. It is not a "blog" and is newsworthy according to Google News standards. Capital Research Center is a Think Tank in Washington, D.C. Neither of those sources are "personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.225.52 (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC) I should add that Western Journalism Center is also a perfectly legitimate organization.173.23.225.52 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC) — 173.23.225.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The problem with the American Thinker source is that it's not really about the book but about topics brought up in the book. Its author was brought in to give an expert opinion, but the focus isn't' on the book itself and other than a brief mention that he wrote it, the book isn't actually mentioned in the article. It's not a review at all, nor should it be represented as one. The Vadum and Nyquist remarks appear to be run of the mill book jacket blurbs, the type that publishing companies and agents seek out in order to publicize a book. What makes these different from reviews is that these are almost always about 1-3 sentences in length and are never part of a longer review. They were deliberately sought out by the publisher, which makes them primary in this situation since they were written with the express intent to promote. You'll never see a negative book blurb quote (outside of an obvious joke) as long as the publicist is doing their job correctly. And as was stated below, WND is not usable as a RS on Wikipedia for various reasons listed in the linked to RS/N discussion. Per this discussion, the Western Journalism Center is not seen as a RS either. I'm aware that Loudon writes within a very set niche, but the coverage still needs to be in places Wikipedia considers reliable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my Wikipedia newbieness, but would it be appropriate to include an excerpt here re: "the focus isn't' on the book itself"? Secondly, the discussion on Western Journalism Center does not seem to draw conclusions. Regardless, this is a "book review;" not being used as a "reliable source" to support a hypothesis (same with WND). ReneeNal (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Updated the page to add review by Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily.ReneeNal (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source in most circumstances (though its fine to be in this article). -- haminoon (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I performed a search in Google and the educational databases of two colleges and found nothing to show that the book would pass NBOOK. The problem here is that Loudon is someone whose work would rarely be covered in the places that Wikipedia considers reliable because he's ultimately considered fringe. While this is a definite issue, there's a reason why many of the fringe websites on either end of the spectrum (liberal or conservative) are almost always considered to be unreliable and RS/N is full of discussions that illustrate those points (self-published, biased, etc etc etc). The end result is still that all books will need to establish notability via Wikipedia's guidelines in order to merit an entry. The sources in the article are almost either primary or in places that are openly considered unreliable on Wikipedia. The only one that could be seen as a RS, American Thinker, is not a review in the slightest and should not be interpreted as such, as stated above. It's very clearly an article where Loudon was brought in to bring his opinion on a topic that happens to brush against the topic in the book, which is why it's mentioned. The quote placed in the article currently is very, very obviously the news source's author writing about the general topic rather than the book itself. As for the blurbs, those are unusable for the above reasons. Long story short, this book just doesn't pass NBOOK, a state that's unlikely to change any time soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As required by NBOOK, the book "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself" & while you mention "fringe websites," perhaps keep in mind that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." The assertion has been made that the American Thinker review "is not a review in the slightest and should not be interpreted as such." If it is appropriate, I believe an excerpt would settle that question. ReneeNal (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy later if needed as none of this currently suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.