Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama and the Enemies Within

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama and the Enemies Within

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

Fails

WP:NBOOK -- haminoon (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as per nom. Yann (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See
WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Question: why do the Glen Beck interview and the New American review cited by the article not satisfy the first notability criterion of
WP:NBOOK? I could not find any other reliable secondary sources to substantiate the notability of this book, but I want to make sure my vote conforms to relevant notability guidelines. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The Glenn Beck piece appears to be just some web video. There's no indication it was on television or part of a network. Its unlikely the book is independent from the Beck enterprise. The New American skirts the reliability requirement. -- haminoon (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Beck is perfectly legitimate, Barack Obama and the Enemies Within was the subject of one of his programs, the author has made several appearances on Beck's show (radio and television) and the book is completely separate from Beck. Not sure what you mean about the New American "skirting" the reliability requirement. 173.23.225.52 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing these sources, I have concluded that the review in WP:NBOOK explains that "'[n]on-trivial' excludes personal websites". ~~Therefore, unless there are other non-trivial reviews I haven't seen, I think deletion is appropriate.~~ -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for your review. I would like to disagree that
TheBlaze is a "personal website." TheBlaze (GBTV as well as many other programs are a part of TheBlaze) is founded by Glenn Beck, but "is an independent news and entertainment television network." See other shows here: ^[1] ReneeNal (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

^ http://www.video.theblaze.com/schedule/index.jsp

Follow-up comment: I know that I keep flip-flopping here, but upon further consideration, I think the New American source and the Glen Beck interview can satisfy the "multiple sources" criteria of
WP:GNG. I therefore change my vote to very weak keep. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

As stated in the Notability guidelines, "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." The book is the subject of a Glenn Beck show and a review at the New American as noted on the page. ReneeNal (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Updated the page to add reviews by American writer David Menefee of Bookpleasures.com and Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily.ReneeNal (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source in most circumstances (though its fine to be in this article). Bookpleasures.com charges authors / publishers for reviews and probably shouldn't be in the article. I'll concur with the more thorough Notecardforfree that the New American is reliable enough for this purpose. The Blaze is still essentially self-published. -- haminoon (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that on Bookpleasures; removed per your advice. I believe that calling the Glenn Beck program "self published" is a bit of a stretch (to put it mildly), but I am open to other opinions. ReneeNal (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft and userfy if needed as there's simply not enough article for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Glen Beck is clearly notable and well followed, regardless of which medium he uses. Oprah is self published by similar criteria for she owns her media shows too. Legacypac (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Self-published does not equal non-notable, and the book seems to have enough coverage by third-party sources. Though Legacypac, I should point that the notability of
Glen Beck has very little to do with the notability of his topics. He is just another source. Dimadick (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom; additionally, the article is written as if the book were undoubtable fact. It says the book is "notable for exposing the radical ties" without presenting any other viewpoints and as though those radical ties were a foregone conclusion. Generally, there are no unbiased reports about the book.
(talk) 13:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually the bias in any given source is no reason to remove it. Per our policy on
Biased or opinionated sources: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."." Dimadick (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The scope and breadth of the sources provided exceed the minimum standards of
WP:NBOOK. Issues of potential bias have already been addressed through the advanced technique of "editing" the article to deal with the problem. Alansohn (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment This is a BLP article as it is very much about Obama. We shouldn't use sources such as WorldNetDaily. I've removed it as a BLP violation. If anyone disagrees, please ask at BLPN first. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable book. A YouTube video that has not been
WP:NBOOK). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I am mystified that people would claim that there are sources which allow this subject to pass
independent sources we require when establishing notability for books. The lack of circulation, mainstream reviews, or even notice in the normal world is just the nail in the coffin. jps (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Please note the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress which makes a strong argument for deleting this parallel article. jps (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that these sources are not sufficient. In no way are they independent and if we allowed articles to stand because of sources like these we would be setting a precedent that allows any 2 of such sources to establish notability for anything they wish to write about. We need independent sources, not sources which are in a sense "clones". Doug Weller talk 16:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about whether a source is notable if it is perceived to be "biased." The notability guidelines on that are clear that . People may not like Glenn Beck or New American, but "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective".ReneeNal (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC) - — ReneeNal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It's not a matter of bias. The problem here is that the Glenn Beck YouTube video has not been
WP:NBOOK; therefore, this is an article without any recognizable reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

To establish notability, you must establish that the sources are independent of the fringe theory being promoted. Read
WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Regardless of its political position, it doesn't pass
WP:BK and lacks the independent and non-trivial reliable sources needed to establish notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Obvious delete. There has been no demonstration of notability. A fellow conspiracy theory promoter like Beck, who is not even in the business of reviewing books, cannot reasonably be a reliable source to establish the notability of a book. The same goes for the New American piece which, rather than being a reliable, objective, third party book review, looks to be merely a fringe source that actually takes this conspiracy theory stuff seriously. If one fringe theorist talking about another fringe theorist's writings conferred notability, then every hare brained, self-published political attack book, blog, and pamphlet would get its own article, and Wikipedia would be in the inadvertent business of promoting them beyond anybody's interest in the subject. If this book had any notability there would be multiple reviews by other disinterested reviewers. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NBOOK, Wikidemon, and the AfD on another Loudon book in what appears to be a series. Graham (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I'd asked at
(｡◕‿◕｡) 08:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I've started a thread at RS/N about whether or not the Beck appearance should be considered a RS or not. The YT vid is a little iffy, but the book is a central part of the discussion. Although the discussion is general at times, the conversation does appear to keep coming back to the book, which would make it a central enough focus for it to be considered in-depth. Now the question here is whether or not a Beck appearance can be considered a notability giving RS. That's still up in the air, although I'm somewhat leaning towards it being usable as a source in this regard. I do need to note though, that if this is considered to be a notability giving source, that's still only one source and that's not enough to pass NBOOK. The NA isn't usable as a notability-giving RS on Wikipedia. I did check to see if it's frequently used as a RS in places like books and academic articles, but all I could find was this book, published by TheBlaze's publishing arm, Mercury Ink. Offhand I'm leaning towards redirecting this to the author's article unless I can find more coverage.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 08:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect or delete per my comments above. I tried searching for sources using Google, Bing, Highbeam, Google Scholar, and two colleges' academic databases. There's just not really anything out there. The New American is considered to not be usable as a reliable source on here except when it's talking about the JBS and even then it can't be used as a notability giving source. The Beck source is questionable as far as RS goes and even if it's ultimately usable as a RS, that's not enough in and of itself to establish notability. Now here's what I propose: that the basic data here be summarized and placed in Loudon's article as a subsection. He's only released two books, neither of which have gained much coverage outside of the usual fringe websites. It's frustrating since the books do seem to be popular, but none of that popularity has translated into these books gaining substantial coverage in places that would be considered reliable on Wikipedia.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Self-published drivel which has achieved precisely no provable mainstream attention. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is an underlying reason for our notability guidelines, namely that we need enough sources to write a useful article on the book. If all sources are highly partisan or fringe non-RSes, we cannot do that and hence should not have an article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither New American nor a YouTube video pass
WP:RS; but when they turn around and put a video on YouTube, that unequivocally fails our criteria. --Aquillion (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete If mainstream sources ignore it, it lacks notability. And anyway we cannot write an accurate article about a book containing outrageous claims without reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author article. Self-published tripe whose title has become a plausible search term after it was touted by a well-known buffoon. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all of two sources and one is Glenn Beck? Nope. Artw (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2016 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barack_Obama_and_the_Enemies_Within&oldid=1078079265"

[1] ttp://www.video.theblaze.com/schedule/index.jsp