Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defeating ISIS

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defeating ISIS

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

Another book in a walled-garden of obscure novels. Apparently propping up Malcolm Nance's books in Wikipedia is easier than waiting for coverage. Book fails GNG and this WP article outcovers every source. DHeyward (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Okay, now this is officially WP:WIKIHOUNDING ([1]). Please stop. Meets the very definition of WP:NBOOKS. More than two (2) reviews of in-depth book reviews. Made The New York Times Best Seller list. Sagecandor (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources pan out and the coverage is significant. I would feel a lot better if DHeyward wasn't so often the one to point out articles written by this article's creator. It would seem avoiding him would be in everyone's best interest, and at a minimum, wise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the web of "What links here" that is common and a growing but unsubstantiated synthesized links to Trump/Russian ties. This is one place where the infection is spreading. Take a step back and the author is a notable figure (Malolm Nance). The two books are not independently notable and it appears that these articles are being created to artificially create credibility. Wikipedia currently has the most in-depth coverage of any of the books and that is a red flag since we are coverage of the coverage. Reading secondary coverage also puts a collection of these titles in a set of Conspiracy Theories. The coverage of these books is a paragraph in the authors biography, not a set of seventh grade book reports masquerading as Wikipedia articles. Walled gardens are soetimes okay but not when they become an astroturfing links to heighten what is really marginal opinions. --DHeyward (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think your judgement is clouded, and again I will recommend simply avoiding Sagecandor's work. Others can review, there are plenty of us here, and frankly this is a path best avoided. As for the book, I see enough to convince me it passes GNG, enough significant coverage. The bar isn't exactly that high, but the fact that it was a NYT best seller alone shows it is likely notable. The citations are sufficient for inclusion. It doesn't matter if it is fringe or conspiracy or blank pages, we just follow the sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BOOKCRIT 1.- Mr X 00:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)`[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBOOKS. Has been reviewed by multiple reliable sources and made it to The New York Times Best Seller list. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Brown's remarks above. Whilst I do understand and to some extent share DH's concerns (generally rather than particularly) regarding artifical notability, the sourcing is sufficiently strong in this particular case to persuade me that such a concern in unwarranted. In any case, as DB points out, that is not an arguement for deletion if the sources already exist. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep. concern about tone, hype can be discussed on the talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notable book. Per WP:NBOOK Criteria number one (1). The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Namely, Journal of Strategic Security, Current Affairs, and The Australian. Sagecandor (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i will not be 'voting' as the article creator has left a message on my talkpage about this afd in case it is construed as WP:CANVASSING, however (oh, here we go:)), the nom, DHeyward, may like to revisit WP:GNG ie. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." and actually explain how this "Book fails GNG" and have a look at WP:NBOOK specifically no. 1 - "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews." and explain how this book does not meet this, anyhow i'm going indoors as it is starting to snow. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple:You are correct as to WP:NBOOK, which requires two (2) independent reviews. This book has three. Sagecandor (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other keeps - in fact this is SNOW keep as mentioned above. Enough reliable sources for GNG including independent reviews, plus NYT top ten listing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I would kindly suggest to the author or anybody else that if the "Background" section is going to be duplicated so many times, you might as well just create an article for the author using that material -- seems like a better idea than status quo to me. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2017 (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.