Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Myth of National Defense

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. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of National Defense[edit]

Non-notable book. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, one of the most important collections of essays related to private defense agencies and related anarcho-capitalist topics. EVCM (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The book appears notable, with many hits. Leonard^(Bloom) 20:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be an important book but before a neutral article can be written on WP the book has to be reviewed and commented on. Otherwise the WP article ends up being just a promotion for the book. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep. Reviewed by Policy Magazine, which may form the basis of a useful article. JulesH (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The notability guideline for books gives some basic guidance on what we should be looking for. Reviews are largely insufficient to generate notability for books since most books are reviewed by some body or another. If a broad swath of newspapers and journals decide to review a book, then more of a case can be made. In the case of a "popular book", we could make a case to keep it if the NY Times, LA times, Wa. Post, etc all decided to review it. For a book like this, if Reason Magazine, the American Conservative and other niche magazines (just spitballing to think of right leaning libertarian publications with some clout) reviewed the book, I could see bending WP:NB. as such, it is a work produced by a libertarian thinktank on a subject near and dear to libertarians: divesting the government of its control over some sphere of power. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "one of the most important..." of anything. Free to Choose it's not. without those reviews or some secondary source making the claims above about importance in the field, we should look to other criteria in the books notability guideline. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:BK - some reviews in mass media, major awards, etc are needed to establish notabilty. This book ranks 736,090th on Amazon.com's sales rank, which strongly suggests that it hasn't gotten much interest since it was released in 2003. The above keep arguments seem to basically be WP:ILIKEIT. As a note, Google searching book titles isn't a good way to establish notability as such searches always return hundreds of book seller websites which have the book on their databases. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Protonk, but these swing it towards keeping: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/myth-nationaldefense.html & http://www.sovereignwarriors.com/the-myth-of-national-defense/. Mathmo ^Talk 03:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article needs a rewrite. The topic of the book is probably more notable than the book itself. jonathon (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2008 (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.