Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Road Ahead; America's Creeping Revolution

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 of the debate was Keep and wikify. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Road Ahead; America's Creeping Revolution

This article was speedied, but is not a speedy candidate; restoring for a proper AfD. Seems like something that can be improved, NPOV'd and kept, if notability can be shown based on influence, citations to the work, sales volume, etc. BD2412 T 03:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - what's wrong with it? It had a distribution over 500,000. - Richardcavell 04:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Caveat - the article says so, but can that be confirmed? BD2412 T 04:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Verify, NPOV and Keep. --- GWO
• Delete unless that number can be proven. I doubt that a book that has sold that many copies would get only about 30 unique Google results, some from far right websites and most of the others from bookstores. -- Kjkolb 09:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It was published in 1949, and is still available on Amazon. WP:BIO says we should keep authors who has an audience of 5000 or more. There's probably more copies than that in libraries (my own unverified POV). Kevin 12:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kevin. However, it could use some wikifying. --^{speak to}gadren 22:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, wikify, etc. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I can find about 220 google hits[1] so I think that an article on this subject might just about meet WPN:NN. However, this article is not it: unsourced, with some of the claims appearing hard to verify, and written in a very POV style. I think that there is a much stronger case for an article on John T. Flynn himself, who appears to have been a prolific writer on these matters for decades, from a perspective which is notable. Such an article could discuss the book as well as his other writings and broadcasting, and more readily accommodate a balanced account of the man's work. --BrownHairedGirl 08:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Might be best to write such an article and merge this into it as a section. BD2412 T 12:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep iff distribution can be proven. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 14:10, 15 May 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.