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 delete. I'm kidding of course, it's clearly keep.--Wizardman 03:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Deceit[edit]

I nominate this article deletion discussion for early closing because all issues seem to have been resolved. --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Deceit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article does not assert notability. Furthermore, the article is in violation of WP:OR. This reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Pablothegreat85 18:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Withdrawn I think we can make this article work. I believe the article can certainly assert notability as this book is notable. I also think the WP:OR can be taken care of through editing. Pablothegreat85 18:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N in lieu of additional sources which assert its notability added to the one good one given. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  follow-up comment I tend to agree with Starblind and Tony Sidaway that this particular book's article has potential to be kept on account of notability. I intend to revisit it in a few days and before the discussion closes to see how the article has developed; in particular if editors research and add good sources. It would not surprise me if it is made keepable, but until then I stand by my above comment (feel free to leave a note on my Talk if someone improves the article). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 01:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Update to weak keep and second closing request, noting withdrawal of nomination. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I added a reference for Tom Roeser's comment. He's a conservative broadcaster, but a very highly qualified one, not just a rent-a-mouth. --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep seems to be a fairly major book, and widely reviewed: a Google news search turns up plenty of newspaper reviews, including the Washington Post and Chicago Sun-Times. Starblind 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The book has been reviewed by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Sun-Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and, in the United Kingdom, national daily newspaper The Independent. If a book garners that kind of attention, while it may not be a best-seller, it's not a candidate for deletion from Wikipedia. If there are content problems (the "original research" complaint above, for instance) then they can be solved by editing the article. --Tony Sidaway 00:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the reviews are enough. Independent RSs writing about the book. Further discussion is besides the point. DGG 03:36, 31 March 2007 (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.