Wiki143:Articles for deletion/The Power of Israel in the United States

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. W.marsh 00:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Power of Israel in the United States

The Power of Israel in the United States (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable book. Publisher seems to be a vanity press - note that they don't have their own domain name but are a subpage of a print on demand company. [1] The book is in only 3 of 10,000+ libraries in worldcat [2] The only sources I see that have written about this book are blogs, indymedia, conspiracy theory and the usual David Duke/jewwatch.org/vanguardnewsnetwork crap GabrielF 16:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom, non-notable vanity press conspiracy book. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete The book in question is already detailed in the main James Petrus page. Its serves no purpose. Time for de-dupe. scope_creep 18:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • James Petras' page does not explain on this book --Nielswik_(talk) 02:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ScottM 18:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign in first time)
• Delete per nom. Crockspot 19:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is also not a Barnes and Nobles, we do not need articles on every book ever made. --NuclearZer0 19:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom, totally non-notable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of above. Also we already have an article on Israel lobby in the United States and this seems to be just another book on the same theory. I don't think we need an article on every book ever published. 6SJ7 21:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not about a book --Nielswik_(talk) 02:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not? what's it about, then?
• Delete per nom, and assign the creator of the article some public service (under control of the Lobby, of course) ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Article may be recreated if and when the book meets Wikipedian standards. gidonb 23:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I was really looking forward to reading an article about this subject and am very annoyed it turns out to be an advert for a book. --Mike 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't aplace to get cheap exposure. Robovski 01:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, 88,200 google hits, reviewed by Amazon, in bookmaster, etc. (see the google search result). You may not find it ind WOrldCat yet because it is new --Nielswik_(talk) 02:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  A customer review at Amazon.com does not indicate notability in any way, shape or form, Bookmaster is the publisher that prints the books - see WP:COI, this also doesn't speak to notability. Clearly this article fails any reasonable notability guideline. GabrielF 03:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete spamvertisement. Tbeatty 02:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not every single book out there is notable. Khoikhoi 04:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Isarig 07:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, can always recreate it later if it gains notability.--Rosicrucian 07:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. Amoruso 09:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep unless we're going to completely hand Wikipedia over to the Israeli censors. --75.17.183.177 09:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The above vote is by a user banned from WP for disruption, personal atatcks and antisemitism. Isarig 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone adds significantly more information such as a summary and criticisms and/or praise from notable sources (preferably print sources and by experts in the field). --GHcool 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I tried to, but some people censored it (see the article's history) --Nielswik_(talk) 10:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your last version did not contain any useful information, but was loaded with POV and of questionable grammar. Removing that is not censorship...--Stephan Schulz 16:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, does not seem notable, and the current article is useless. --Stephan Schulz 16:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The ZOG strikes again .. he he he. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn book, Tewfik^Talk 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge book does not seem to require its own page, merge with James Petras. --Deodar 03:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable Book by Notable Author. Comparable to State of Denial by Bob Woodward. The bad grammar by Malay (?) editor could of have been easily copy-edited. His original contribution is what counts. Espabila, Favila, que viene el Oso! Will 07:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Newer Edit. O.K. Now the article has a little depth. Please contribute and copy edit rather than delete. Collobarate in lieu of revert. Espabila, Favila, que viene el Oso! Will 08:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  How exactly is a book by a barely-notable author that has gotten no press attention and no notable reviews comparable with the latest bestseller from Bob Woodward? GabrielF 17:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  Please don't confuse quality of argument with quantity. Or Numerosity with novelity. The notability comes from the book's unique divergence from conventional wisdom. The notability is shown by the interest it has attracted in this "delete" forum. Of course, it will get deleted. But decency and an accommodation to fellow editors would call for a redirect. Espabila, Favila, que viene el Oso! Will 04:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  I'm fine with a redirect. But I don't buy your point that something is notable because of its "unique divergence from conventional wisdom". By that criterion, the crankier a thesis is, the more notable it becomes...--Stephan Schulz 08:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment as Will has expanded the article, i guess this article shouldn't be deleted. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 18:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, why not? Just because a Wikipedia editor describes the contents of a book, it doesn't make it any more notable. Have you read the nomination reasoning? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I don't like it either, but it's got a Sales Rank of 18,361. Pretty good. - crz crztalk 23:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Never mind that, only Howard and Southern Ill libraries have it... I guess a buncha kooks bought it an Amazon. NN publisher does not inspire confidence either. - crz crztalk 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I voted merge but the lack of libraries stocking the book may have to do with it being released less than 2 months ago (mid-September 2006) more than anything else. Your test would have more validity if you conducted it 5 years or more after the release of the book -- if still no libraries had it, then it clearly fell with a thud. It's sales rank this evening was 6,49 BTW. --Deodar 02:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the worldcat test may be okay in this case. I'm guessing that most library sales happen pretty soon after a book is released. Note that State of Denial was released four days after this book and its in almost 1000 libraries in worldcat. [3] 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a few different classes of books. Those from established notable authors are bought right away -- Woodward would fit in this category -- the another set are bought based on patron request -- which takes a while longer. I recently was surprised that my library had 6 books by Uri Davis written over the period of 1978-2003 even though they were relatively fringe, especially the earlier ones. --Deodar 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to James Petras. Nothing left to merge, really, and redirects are cheap. I doesn't seem to merit an article in its own right, but woudl be useful to redirect to the author to catch folks googling for the book. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nomination. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. File:Matt Devonshire2.jpgMorton Devonshire^Yo 05:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Brimba 09:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Beit Or 21:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Probably a lost cause, but Redirect to James Petras. As Youngamerican said above, redirects are cheap. - Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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.