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 – consensus that topic (the book) meets notability criteria (NAC). – S. Rich (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Plot to Hack America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails GNG. The topic is notable but that doesn't confer notability to every article/bookinterview. This book does not receive significant third party references and is generally mentioned as an advert plug when the author is interviewed. We cover the topic and authors and this is content and POV fork. This shold be deleted with noted, verifiable facts merged into the main topic. DHeyward (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability not established by independant reviews. Fails GNG. Agrees with DHeyward. The topic is notable but that doesn't confer notability to every article/bookinterview Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article provides in-depth coverage of multiple aspects of the book, including Composition, Publication, Reception, Aftermath, etc. Has been subject of multiple secondary sources, including discussion through interviews with the author. Massive article and sourced content, would only do harm to the encyclopedia to remove it. Please Keep. Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The Wall Street Journal placed The Plot to Hack America in its list of "Best-Selling Books" in February 2017. — "Wall Street Journals Best-Selling Books Week Ended February 19th.", Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, February 24, 2017, retrieved June 8, 2017 Sagecandor (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For one week at 7th place only in the e-books category. Probably the week the e-book was released or when it was hawked on a talk show. It's print version wasn't on the list and it didn't stay on the list. Books that finished higher don't have an article because they aren't notable. There are books that are notable on that list nut they also made the print list, multiple weeks and lasting notability. This book is not notable as an article separate from the author or the topic. --DHeyward (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not how we parse WP:Notability (books), which is amply satisfied as it is on a "Best-Selling Books" list by The Wall Street Journal. We do not discriminate against ebooks, or based on other formats not derived from dead trees. Sagecandor (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure it is. Notability is lasting, not passing. Notable books are also independent. This book doesn't get noticed beyond the interview with the offer and might deserve a paragraph in their bio. That's how we handle books of this type. The requirement is generally the subject of "two or more non-trivial published works." The single list you found is the definition of trivial as it a single week at an arbitrary place in the list. More importantly, Wikipedia shot not be the main source for a review of the material. The article as it's written here is fancruft with significantly more detail than any source. Wikipedia is the opposite of that. You made my point and seem to almost realize it's the author that's notable since you added a number of Wikiprojects that have no connection to books topic. Did WSJ keep a copy of their weekly list or even their criteria? --07:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• We met WP:Notability (books), with "two or more non-trivial published works". 1) Book review. 2) The Wall Street Journal "Best-Seller List". Sagecandor (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, please do not edit other user's comments, as was done here [1]. Especially as a party with the vested interest as AfD nominator. Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:Notability is not temporary, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Sagecandor (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Wikipedia:Notability (books) satisfied. Criteria 1: This includes published works in all forms, such as ... bestseller lists. The Wall Street Journal identified the book in its "Best-Selling Books." Criteria 1. This includes .. reviews. See in-depth review in New York Journal of Books — Lipkin, Michael (October 10, 2016), "The Plot to Hack America: How Putin's Cyberspies and WikiLeaks Tried to Steal the 2016 Election", New York Journal of Books, retrieved June 7, 2017. Sagecandor (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• NYJB is not a notable reviewer of books and in fact, won't review any book that has already been published. Pre-punlished only. They did not review the ebook that was #7 on an ebook list for a week. Nor did the version they did review make it to any lists. NYJB only reviews pre-punlished books because of marketing and money, not notability. They review on request. Their reviews are not an indication of notability but rather an indication that the author is unknown and their works non-notable. --DHeyward (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Appears to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria 1 by the virtue of two or more non-trivial reviews. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: where was the second review and how is a self-requested, pre-published review by NYJB non-trivial? --DHeyward (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: On second thought, per DHeyward, NYJB is not independent of the subject. The second item I was referring to is the Wall Street Journal bestseller list (hence not a review, but probably meets the bestseller criteria of the guideline, though this can be debated as DHeyward has done). Delete pending non-trivial independent reviews. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop:The claims by the nominator are false. Please see this fact from Publishers Weekly about New York Journal of Books: "No one associated with the site is being paid". Sagecandor (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DHeyward hasn't really shown us anything that backs up the claims made about New York Journal of Books, which undermines all arguments made based on its nature. I've struck down both of my votes; I can't arrive at a position. See also related discussion on my Talk page: User talk:Finnusertop#Thanks for noticing !. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NBOOK #1. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BOOKCRIT 1.- MrX 00:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Unfortunately, I am now being the subject of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defeating ISIS. Sagecandor (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trust me when I say to just ignore it. They tend to feed off of your irritation.- MrX 00:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is better, and serves readers in a better way, when it is comprehensive.—OhioOakTree (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NBOOK Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, the notability is not strong, but a larger problem is the way the article is written; reads like a press release in dramatic prose. Needs some npov and ce work. Kierzek (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the nom's statements about the NYJB is their personal opinion, can they please provide the policy/guideline that a book reviewer is not useable if they only review books that are not yet published and/or sent to them/requested of them (or does the nom think that all the okay reviews/ers purchase books from bookshop then review them, how on earth could this be proved)? based on no. 1 of WP:NBOOK, that makes no mention of this, a review from NYJB appears ok. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For the same reason Wikipedia doesn't write articles by request or take money to do so. These review sites are like pay-for-play journals. They lack the rigor and independence expected of an objective reviewer. This author had the pre-election book reviewed by the only company he uses for reviews. The author is notable but his books are not independantly notable. --DHeyward (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps you can provide citations for your claim that NYJB is like pay-for-play journals, or that they are somehow not independent (of the author or publisher). Failing that, you should expect your arguments to be heavily discounted.- MrX 20:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Coolabahapple and MrX:The claims by the nominator are false. Please see this fact from Publishers Weekly about New York Journal of Books: "No one associated with the site is being paid". Sagecandor (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Finnusertop, Coolabahapple, DHeyward, and MrX: Would you be willing to look at the discussion of this Book Review Journal now @ Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Thank you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not necessarily a great book. But a notable one, yes. NickCT (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A sufficient coverage of the book in secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article meets notable book Criteria: 1 The Wall Street Journal "Best-Selling Books," and the New York Journal of Books in depth review. NYJB is a notable reviewer of books. “Only reviews pre-published books” is not a limiting criterion. With some 250,000 new titles and editions issued each year many reviewers limit their work to new books only. JeffFive (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @JeffFive: Would you be willing to look at the discussion of this Journal now underway @ Reliable Sources? Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @E.M.Gregory: Yes JeffFive (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the author is notable. He wrote three other notable books, published by two (one is a major) well established notable houses. The book is included reading in a course at Pasadena City College, founded in 1924. JeffFive (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets notability. --Lockley (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. ‑‑Yodin^T 21:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Book did not receive reviews to satisfy WP:NBOOK (Note that the New York Journal of Books is an group blog). As Nom states, the media coverage is of Nance as an expert, not of the book. The support for notability seems to come down to a single week at 7th place on an e-book bestsellers list. Not to coverage of coverage of the book in news pages. Or opinion columns of the book. Or book reviews in edited publications. Or feature stories about the book. It does look as though Nance may be able to support a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publishers Weekly says it is not a "group blog", "The New York Journal of Books posts long-form reviews, meant for consumers, of just-published books.". Sagecandor (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The reviewers are apparently not paid. There is no indication in sources I have examined that the reviews are edited. (I looked because I had never heard of this book review before.) In other words, this review may stand somewhere in the grey area between Goodreads and "real" book review journals like Los Angeles Review of Books and Claremont Review of Books. Because some of the reviewers are independently notable (authors, retired college professors) the reviews have some value. But I do not believe that it counts the way a review in a "regular" book review journal or in a general publication that reviews books would count towards WP:BOOKCRIT #1. I have posed this question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that the reviewers are not paid means they don't have any conflict of interest. New York Journal of Books does indeed have editorial review, with an Editor-in-Chief, and a Panel of Reviewers including Northeastern University School of Law professor Roger Abrams. Sagecandor (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would consider a Redirect and selective merge to Malcolm Nance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing editor. Because of the discussion of the key source supporting notability, the New York Journal of Books on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, close should be deferred until that discussion has reached consensus.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin. Closer should not discount comments by Muboshgu, MrX, OhioOakTree, Hawkeye7, Kierzek, NickCT, My very best wishes, JeffFive, Lockley, and Yodin — based upon comments of one user who fails to back up claims with evidence. Sagecandor (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just got an email response back from New York Journal of Books. Question: Do you just let book reviewers post live whatever they want, or do all book reviews go through an editor first ? Their official response: "All professionally edited. And books to be reviewed are curated." I've forwarded the correspondence to WP:Contact us for confirmation. The ticket number for future reference, logging the email correspondence, is 2017061410000609. Sagecandor (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Malcolm Nance. (1) There is an article on Malcolm Nance and we've established that this phrase is a useful search term for him, so outright deletion should be out of the question. (2) Usually we look to three solid reviews (not the brief blurbs from PW/Booklist/Kirkus) to justify keeping an article on a contemporary book. Is NY Journal of Books really the only review under discussion? I've excluded that source before simply because it doesn't have a pedigree—you can argue at RSN that it has been mentioned by other sources but it isn't even near the level of a review from the NYT, NY Review of Books, or other major magazine/newspaper... And even if there was to be a consensus that NY Journal of Books is somehow a peer of those publications, it would only be one review. So on one hand, bravo on its article expansion, but the RSN discussion isn't even close to a proxy discussion on this book's independent notability (also the expansion easily falls apart as a collection of author bios and unreliable sources). (3) Nance has written other notable books before (see Sage's comment for specific reviews). In comparison, this topic's article is based mostly on a C-SPAN primary source that should be used as a source in the author's own article, and the summary is source primarily to the book itself with the NY Journal of Books thrown in as a side-ref without specifying what the source even confirms. The Reception section is a pile of mentions from various publications, which do not together amount to reviews. The other interviews reveal more about Nance's career than they provide backdrop for the book. The author's article makes a good target for what can be salvaged from this article, but as of now, there is no indication that this book was itself the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Happy to revisit if more coverage (esp. reviews) specific to the book is uncovered. czar 02:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and selective merge to Malcolm Nance. Sourcing is far too thin to support a stand-alone article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users neglect to mention it satisfies WP:NBOOK as best seller, on The Wall Street Journal best seller list. Sagecandor (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Consensus appears to be forming at WP:RSN that New York Journal of Books meets the standards for reliable book reviews. [2] Sagecandor (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2017 (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.