Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectuals and Society

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 with cleanup required. The only delete comment is from the nominator. While the article at present does require extra sources, sufficient sources have been presented to meet criterion 1 of WP:NBOOKS, in depth coverage by third party sources. These need to be added as soon as possible, but have been presented, so I'm closing this discussion as keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectuals and Society[edit]

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

No evidence of notability and is has serious tone issues. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve As things stand, this article is just a summary of Sowell's book. But a Google Books search shows that the book (only 2 years old) has sufficient discussion to indicate notability. For example, it is criticised in "Zombie Economics: How Dead Ideas Still Walk Among Us" and "Routledge International Handbook of Contemporary Social and Political Theory" AllyD (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Comment I'm not sure if my nominations already counts as a delete vote but as a comment, the fact that two books (whose notability is also nonexistent) cite it isn't a justification for notability. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBOOKS with at least 2 in depth critical reviews of the book avialble (Washington Times and National Review Online). It would be nice to have a review from the other end of the political spectrum to help ensure a nuetral article can be written however. RadioFan (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 19:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ...But needs more souces Goldblooded (talk) 09:27, 13 July 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.