Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America Alone

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The result was keep , withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) CharlieEchoTango 20:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

America Alone[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:N. Cs32en Talk to me 12:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing the nomination. There are actually sufficient sources available, although the number of sources that cannot be classified as opinion pieces by ideological fellows of the author of the book is limited. The article, however, fails to make use of these sources, and will need to be significantly reworked to avoid bias. Cs32en Talk to me 18:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article describes Steyn's book as a best-seller (also so-described in this article in The Guardian and in this article in The Observer). And see also this Guardian opinion piece on the Canadian court case against re-publication of a chapter of the book, also covered in a separate Wikipedia article in its own right. And that's from just searching on the newspapers that I read. All in all, there is enough out there to establish the book's notability. AllyD (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These sources need to be included in the article, and the article needs to be written based primarily on such independent, secondary sources. Writing articles based on primary sources, and on statements made by ideological supporters is not acceptable. Cs32en Talk to me 21:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that neither The Guardian nor The Observer can be considered an ideological supporter of Steyn's views. I'm also unclear where your series of imperative statements emanate from? They are not reasons shown at WP:DEL; rather it appears that you are seeking article improvement? That is laudable (and I would encourage you to seek and apply such improvements through normal editing), but not a ground for AfD. AllyD (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other approach would be to delete almost all of the article, as it does not meet the requirements of WP:NPOV, a central pillar of the project. People who create biased articles, very likely motivated by their own POVs rather than by the goal of contributing to the encyclopedia, cannot force others to look for sources, read them, and correct their texts. (Note that I am not implying that you would be one of the editors that I am describing here.) We can allow articles that are incomplete, but largely uncontroversial, to remain in a deficient state, in an eventualist perspective. We cannot do this with tendentious articles, or in cases where the sources that are actually being used do not allow to determine whether the presentation is biased or not. Cs32en Talk to me 22:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly enough sources. And coverage is continuing. NPOV is usually attained by adding appropriately sourced material, and NPOV problems are not appropriately dealt with by deleting the article. There's no way of having a comprehensive encyclopedia that every will agree is NPOV, because different people have very different opinions of what that means in any given cases. Hence our standard principle for dealing with POV, that we include all responsible sourced views. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources. – Lionel ^(talk) 11:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. There are enough reliable sources, meets WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2011 (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.