Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectuals and Society (2nd nomination)

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectuals and Society

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

No evidence that the book meets WP:NBOOKS. All sources in the article are used to simply source what the book is about. No information about reviews. —Ryulong (琉竜) 17:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable book. The first pages of Google reveal substantive commentaries in City Journal [1], The American Spectator [2], The Chronicle of Higher Education [3], American Thinker[4], Chalcedon Report (reprinted here [5]), The New Republic [6], and Foreign Policy (with the entertaining title "Intellectual says really stupid thing to prove point about intellectuals: film at 11") [7], plus one from National Review that is mentioned by others but seems to have vanished from the web. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos' multiple book review finds. The American Spectator, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and Foreign Policy are all reliable sources (the others may be, too, but I don't know them) and the sources' articles go in depth about the book itself. Thus the book seems to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:NBOOKS for notability. The article is sorely lacking in secondary sources, but given the multiple reviews, this is a surmountable problem per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable book and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources mentioned above and the book sources that I linked in the previous AfD. The article text iself is poor, but that is a matter of improvement not deletion. AllyD (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources have been found but no one has bothered to add them to the article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment exactly the same, can't get the book's page deleted the next best thing is to add every negative review of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_December_9 — Preceding

- That may be true, but is not a good reason for deleting the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unsigned comment added by Estermackayy (talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the keep votes above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:09, 17 December 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.