Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism[edit]

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page should be deleted because it does not meet any of the five relevant "notable book" criteria under WP:BKCRIT. Murphy's book 1) has not been the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" (this criterion explicitly excludes blogs) in mainstream reliable sources; 2) won no "major awards" for non-fiction; 3) has not been demonstrated (by RS) to have contributed substantially to a major aesthetic, religious, or political movement; 4) is not taught at "multiple" universities or high/middle schools; and 5) is not written by a major historical figure Steeletrap (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. The GNG says that two independent, reliable sources should have given the topic significant coverage. I see that the book was discussed on a C-SPAN program[1], an article written by Thomas Woods (the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History) for LewRockwell.com[2], an article written by Jamie Glazov for FrontPage Magazine[3], and the book is part of a series of some 23 volumes called "Politically Incorrect Guides" from Regnery. The book is cited by law professor Johan Schweigl of Masaryk University, Czech Republic, in his paper "'Financial Crisis' or Healing Process?".[4] The book is also cited several times by Forbes writer Bill Flax in his book The Courage to Do Nothing: A Moral Defense of Markets and Freedom—Flax quotes Murphy directly on page 125. I think that is enough coverage to merit an article. Binksternet (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The facts you offer, when filtered through the requirements, do not add up to a keep. For example, instead of mainstream sources, you offer LewRockwell.com. You say it's part of a series, but do all the books in the rest of the series have articles? Is there even an article on the series? MilesMoney (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
C-Span provides open-camera/open mic at all kinds of events to fill its programming day. They broadcast hearings at the Tallahassee Animal Shelter about whether to switch to organic kitty litter. The C-Span discussion was not a C-SPAN produced program or editorial endorsement of the book's notability. [insert]The C-SPAN was a broadcast of a promotional event staged by the publishing company's affiliate. It's no different than the webcam at Pano's Restaurant. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement at GNG for C-SPAN to offer "editorial endorsement" of the book as they air a discussion of it. The simple fact that they aired it suffices to lend it notability. C-SPAN is a reliable source for establishing notability. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bink, can you please explain which of the criteria you believe the book meets? A cursory mention in one paragraph of a book, mainstream or not, doesn't meet the "non-trivial" test. Nor do connected (see below) sources LewRockwell.com and FrontPageMag. Steeletrap (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that your "one paragraph" refers to the quote in the Flax book. One paragraph dedicated to the topic is more than "a passing mention" which is specified at GNG, so one paragraph is sufficient to satisfy GNG. However, in this case Flax cites Murphy's book a handful of times, and gives Murphy a second long quote—another paragraph—starting on page 264.[5] That makes two paragraphs of Murphy book quotes used to emphasize points made by Flax. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Two sources" is incorrect. GNG says "multiple" which means more than one, but also enough to show the topic is notable. For example, two sources might be enough if they are NY Times and Washington Post. If the sources are less mainstream or shorter in length, we may want more than two, perhaps 4 or 5. It's very subjective how many sources are needed, each case is unique which is why the guideline does not specify an exact number other than > 1. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing about my statement of "two sources" but in fact I brought four sources here discussing the book, one of which cites it and quotes it, and a fifth source citing it as a reference. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge per WP:GNG after reading the list of requirements and noting that this book doesn't even come close to meeting them but it now has enough for a brief mention on the author's article. MilesMoney (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC) 19:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This book does not meet the tests listed in WP:GNG. Editors who believe the article should be retained, please state which GNG requirements it meets, how and why? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bink cites a LewRockwell.com article and the article cites Human Events article that mention the PIG. The former was written by Tom Woods, Murphy's co-worker at the Mises Institute and author of another book in the Politically Incorrect Guide series. The latter was written by a publication which (per the link) is doing marketing research on behalf of the PIG series. Neither source can be counted because citations must be ""Independent of the subject", which "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." (Per WP:GNG)
That was my analysis when I examined the book vs. the GNG requirements. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Robert P. Murphy article and create a redirect for the title to the particular section. Rationale: 1. The Politically Incorrect series article would become too crowded if each book had an individual section. 2. For those books with less prominence, such as this one, they still get encyclopedic treatment, but without a full fledged article. Revised to Keep. Enough sources have been provided to justify as a notable topic. Specifico's comments, posted below, by being so broad as to include the entire series, are not helpful. Some of the books in the series are NYT best sellers. – S. Rich (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC) 04:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Problemo Srich, the book is not notable. Listing it elsewhere doesn't make it notable. In fact the entire series is not notable and there should soon be an AfD on the Politically Incorrect Guide article. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you don't understand Wikipedia policy. Subjects which aren't separately notable can still be merged to other articles or discussed in other articles as long as there is one or more source supporting any statements made. See WP:N, e.g. "The notability guidelines do not apply to article ... content ... Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context." Wikipedia policies not only do not prohibit merging the content, they encourage merging. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO didn't say PIG to capitalism is "insufficiently notable" to have a page (which could mean it is still notable enough for a merge). She said it was non-notable, period. All content on WP needs to be notable. Steeletrap (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • More significant coverage. I brought up five sources above and here are more:
The sources I have brought to this page add up, with significant coverage and passing mention both adding to the total. Kinchen's review clinches it. GNG has been satisfied. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add the sources to the article? Then this little debate can be put to rest. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification, this Afd can now close as "keep" because I showed good sources, even before the sources are added to the article. Yes, someone should add them eventually, but I'm heading out the door now to enjoy the sunshine with Mrs Bink. Cheers— Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It can be closed as keep right after the editors who voted to delete examine your sources and change their minds. If they don't find the sources sufficiently reliable and significant, then nothing changes. Please don't jump the gun when it comes to consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If these sources prove to be reliable, I think they make a good argument for merging the book into the author's article, not for giving the book its own. MilesMoney (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Miles, this discussion can be closed as "keep" even through what you might call a majority of "delete" voters. The closing admin could simply look up the provided sources, judge them as sufficient in coverage and reliability, and close the case. The Afd is not quite the same animal as the Rfc in that regard. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bink, the only thing you've clarified is your lack of understanding of the relevant policy. A few sources -- and I'm not even sure if you've established that they're reliable -- mentioning a subject are not sufficient grounds for its having a WP entry. Steeletrap (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not sure then why are you commenting? I have brought eight sources, one with passing mention, one in which a scholar cites Murphy's book, one which scholar cites Murphy's book a handful of times and gives him two separate paragraphs of prominent and attributed quotes, a news agency which reviews the book, an in-depth appearance of the book on C-SPAN, an in-depth discussion of the book on Business Talk Radio, a notable person who writes about the book on LewRockwell.com, and a notable person who discusses the book in FrontPage Magazine. The book is also part of a notable series. These all add up to a book which is worth its own article. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources misleading This is exceedingly sloppy research. The first source briefly cites Murphy and notes he wrote the book, but nothing in the book is discussed or even alluded to. I see no evidence that the latter two sources are even reliable -- ore notable -- by WP standards. Steeletrap (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete(OP) The page should be deleted because the book is not sufficiently notable for its own wiki entry, per the above criteria. (UPDATE: vote changed from delete/merge to delete after I examined the misleading nature of Bink's citations.) Steeletrap (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In about 4 minutes of searching news.archives, questia and highbeam, I came up with a couple more sources besides ones User:Binkersernet mentioned, but I don't want to be subject to the third degree by the Originator and two other "Deletes" who are editors in Austrian economics general sanctions articles, Murphy being one of several battleground articles where removal of material and even AfDs are frequent. These facts really taint the process. Let's search to improve articles, not just AfD them. User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 08:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For the record, the nominator truncates the important part of the book lowbar in giving us a taste of a number of non-applicable tangents. To wit: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." I find the C-SPAN cite above to be particularly compelling. Carrite (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HERE is coverage from Human Events. Plus FrontPageMag above, we're done. Carrite (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Politically_Incorrect_Guide_to_Capitalism&oldid=1077951965"