Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Threat to Reason

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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Threat to Reason[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)

Non-notable book by a non-notable (red linked) author. The article was created on 5 March 2008 and prodded for speedy deletion the same day on the grounds that it was "simply an advert for a non-notable book". On 3 September 2008 (speedy??) the tag was removed with the comment that it was "clearly not an advert; added references". While I agree that it is not just an advert, there has been nothing added to this article of any substance since 2008 and nothing to suggest it is in any way notable. Besides, two of the "references" are simply reviews, respected to be sure, and the third is to Wikipedia! Emeraude (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the book is notable for the multiple reviews it has received in major publications. These include the Financial Times, the Guardian, ~~Prospect magazine~~, Socialist Review, the BBC, the Institute of Ideas. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reviews in The Guardian and Financial Times are very solid. The review in The Independent is also very significant. The other sources strike me as passing mentions (I'd add The Spectator) and blogs. The Prospect magazine article cited above is written by the author of this book, which is extremely inappropriate to cite. wumbolo ^^^ 13:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wumbolo: Um, the Prospect review of Dan Hind's book was written by Ayanna Prevatt-Goldstein. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does the "review" say "my book, The Threat to Reason"? wumbolo ^^^ 13:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, she must just have posted it for him. But we have more than enough reviews to demonstrate notability here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 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.