Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Together Now (book)

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 keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All Together Now (book)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete WP:BEFORE shows a couple of perfunctory reviews, but not the depth of coverage required by WP:NBOOK UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that author's other book Crunch (book), is completely unsourced. I ran some quick searches on All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy and, as with Crunch I found that columnists, and perhaps some news articles, were engaging with, discussing these books, but didn't see much in the way of reviews. I did not Prod Crunch because it may be that a diligent editor with an interest in the topic could source a good article on each. Maybe. More likely we just delete this; they're already mentioned. But I'll wait a few days and see what other editors find.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a reception section to the article, including reviews of the book from two academic journals (New Labor Forum and Community Development of Taylor & Francis), and one magazine (Industrial Worker). Excerpts from the book have also been published in The New York Times. Per these reviews and coverage, I believe that the book passes criteria one of WP:NBOOK. MarkZusab (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's not a review in the Times. I looked too, and it didn't get reviews in major media or academic places. I did't find much in the way of discussion of it in later years, either, so...

~~Merge~~ to Jared Bernstein, where it is already mentioned, but whatever is useful on this page can be added there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:MarkZusab has shown that the book meets WP:NBOOK because it has been the subject of two non-trivial reviews (in Industrial Worker and Community Development). Someone objected that these are not 'major media or academic places' but they seem to be perfectly respectable, independent published sources. Google scholar lists 53 citations, which also indicates that the book has enjoyed some salience in academic discussion -- not that that this is necessary for it to be notable. Alarichall (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2 book reviews, in minor publictions ≠ WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The journals may not be household names, but they're serious publications; WP:NBOOK simply asks, sensibly, for 'non-trivial' coverage. The examples of the kinds of publications that might be trivial listed are 'personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable'. These reviews surely meet the notability criteria fine. Alarichall (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it our usual practice to expect that a notable book will have more than 2 reviews. (we've gotta draw a line somewhere.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've accepted this as a keep, but for future reference: we have got to draw the line somewhere, and the line is 'two or more non-trivial published works'. That is, it is our usual practice to expect that a notable book will have two or more reviews, not 'more than two'. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alarichall, what policy are you citing?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBOOK! Alarichall (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as obvious pass of WP:NBOOK#1. Also reviewed in "A philosophy of failure: YOYOs in charge don't want government to work" by Tom White in The Charleston Gazette, 19 July 2006, p 5A. Also reviewed in "YOYOs had us on a string, but that may be changing" by Gregory Stanford in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 17 Dec 2006, p J4. Also reviewed in "Bewitched by bad economics" by M. J. Anderson in The Providence Journal, 23 June 2006, pB5. Not surprisingly, also part of the review essay "How Capitalism Works Now" in The American Prospect (Nov 2006, vol 17, no 11, pp 54-56). Bakazaka (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews brought to page during discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2019 (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.