Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Anti-Chomsky Reader

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. Hog Farm _Talk 22:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Chomsky Reader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Notability. Promotional. Also tagged since 2012 yet issues have still not been addressed, it's more like a hit piece using a list of cherry-picked quotes, not sure why it has lasted this long, it's nothing more than a soapbox. Acousmana (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Passes GNG/NBOOKS. For better or worse, "de facto soapbox" alone is not a deletion criterion. The issues the article is tagged for are ones resolved via ordinary editing rather than deletion. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Still looking, but it's worth highlighting that this is a self-published book. One of the authors runs the conservative publisher. There doesn't look to be much coverage outside of the conservative media bubble. Still looking for mainstream reviews (in popular or academic press), which may exist. The New Criterion piece might be the best we have thus far (written by Keith Windschuttle). Certainly the article as-is needs work, but that doesn't mean deletion. Pending finding more sources, I'm leaning weak delete at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think the self-published status is particularly relevant. Self-published books can be notable — for instance I have created two articles on self-published books that I think are notable, by virtue of their multiple published reviews, Adventures Among the Toroids and Divine Proportions: Rational Trigonometry to Universal Geometry. In this case, the question should be whether there is an adequate number of in-depth independent published sources about the book (such as reviews) and whether we have enough of a broad spectrum of opinion to make an adequately WP:NPOV article, just as it would be for a conventionally published book. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There's another review at doi:10.1007/BF02802991. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- The purpose of WP is not to host book reviews. The test is whether this book is notable. It appears to be a collection of academic essays opposing the views of Chomsky. There is a host of collections of academic essays in books. When I have sought to access individual essays in such works my experience is that very few libraries actually hold a copy. The article is on a book with a POV. This makes it difficult for the article to present a NPOV on the underlying topic, but that is not a reason for deletion, if the article provides a fair account of the book. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews included in the article, also WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Society has also reviewed The Anti-Chomsky Reader (listed here). Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as reviews are sufficient for book notability. I echo that AfD is not cleanup. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2021 (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.