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. Although some argument was made towards WP:TOOSOON, general opinion is that the book passes WP:GNG through sustained news coverage. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons To Vote For Democrats (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)

This is an old joke, which has been tried too many times, see

• The Great Book of Lesbian Humor, 1960s
• Everything Obama Knows About the Economy, 2011
• A History of the Palestinian People, 2017

.....all blank books. And all, AFAIK, self published. Wikipedia doesn't need to put up with every silly joke, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Pr WP:Not notable, Huldra (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• .....and Pr WP:NOTNEWS, Huldra (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that WP:Not notable is a subhead on page Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom fails to exhibit evidence of WP:BEFORE. Nom fails to provide a policy-based reason for deletion. Personal opinions are neither a valid reason for bringing an articl eto AFD, nor is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT a valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SNOWKEEP: The media coverage has been extensive and over a prolonged period of time and has spawned numerous copycats. And not a single policy cited in bringing this AFD. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily passes WP:GNG and the book specific WP:NBOOK(1). Major coverage of this book exists, beyond what is reffed in the article as a simple BEFORE shows. Old joke or not, it is notable due to coverage, RSes find this notable, so should we.Icewhiz (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is any of the coverage "non-trivial" though? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. All independent of the published. And there's more - this is from a quick search (cutting out instances in which the Author was interviewed by the publication).Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this shouldn't be considered under WP:NBOOK; it's a joke, not a written work. The only case for notability is WP:MILL news coverage of "Trump posted about it on Twitter", which is not sufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I do agree that NBOOK shouldn't apply and isn't intended for such a non-literary product. GNG is the yardstick. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a WP:OR claim. This book has an ISBN (978-1-543-02497-5), pages (266) of which some are Intentionally blank page that are used in most books to some degree, and 1235 words ([9]) - which is more than books such as The Very Hungry Caterpillar (which is 32 pages and 224 words per [10]). It is described by its author as a book, and is sold as a book. And finally multiple WP:RS refer to it as a book: [11][12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] (this is a far from complete list - however it shows major RSes referring to it as a book). We are supposed to follow the sources, not make independent judgements based on our POV regarding the nature of objects - if multiple RS say X is a Y, then we should follow said classification (regardless, it also passed on GNG - coverage pre-dates presidential endorsement and post-dates as well and is sustained).Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC) And I'll add, we recognize other blank works: e.g. music: 4′33″ visual arts: White on White, Monochrome painting.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you reckon it a book, a pamphlet, a joke, concrete poetry, or a work of conceptual art, the notability requirements are similar - in-depth coverage, analysis, or reviews. I'm not sure any of the articles you cite can be termed in-depth coverage of the book itself, whereas Cage's 4'33" has a considerable body of critical analysis. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because there is, in fact, WP:SIGCOV in these Washington Post articles: ‘Reasons to Vote for Democrats’ jumps to the top of Amazon’s bestseller list. But its pages are blank., [19], and, An author praised Trump on ‘Fox & Friends.’ Hours later, his book had a presidential endorsement. [20]. New York Daily News, Blank book called ‘Reasons to vote for Democrats’ top seller on Amazon, [21], and quite a few more that go into surprising depth considering that this was a book of blank pages. Like this Weekly Standard article by Roger Kimball, Shooting Blanks, [22]. There are also articles crediting this with spawning imitators, and articles about one of the imitators, The History of the Palestinian People: From Ancient Times to the Modern Era, featuring "132 blank pages" being removed from Amazon after commentators on the site objected. Okay, so: Q. How many Democrats does it take to change a light bulb? A. That's not funny.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The book received significant coverage in the Business Insider article, passes WP:GNG Cllgbksr (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not all of the sources mentioned above are useful, however I absolutely do see coverage of the book's inception, critical commentary on its publication, and even direct reporting on its reception. It would be completely feasible to write a succinct encyclopedia article on this topic (if not at length) based on reliable, secondary sources. I see the general notability guideline totally satisfied in E.M.Gregory's first few links. Nom, what matters here is that the "silly little joke" received significant coverage. czar 02:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes -- there was quite a lot of coverage for this book. Once. I'm essentially arguing that this is WP:TOOSOON. At the moment the media is regurgitating anything and everything that President Trump says on Twitter, but is that evidence of sustained interest? A Trump tweet is effectively an event at this point. Perhaps if this book is still being written about six months or a year from now then that will be evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage that would warrant inclusion per WP:Notability. A Train^talk 08:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:BK(1) - there is no requirement for sustained coverage. Coverage had been much than one burst - 1. in release, 2. also a month+ later with Trump. 3. And also in June... This book has coverage more or less continuously from release - claiming this is TOOSOON, is essentially calling for a waiting period of six months for any item under WP:GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- lots of trivial coverage: short articles, brief mentions in longer articles. WP:BK is specifically asking for "non-trivial" coverage. The very nature of this book makes it difficult for any coverage of it to ever be non-trivial unless it becomes a Pokemon-style phenomenon. A Train^talk 08:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinions aside whether the book is trivial and whether coverage of a triviality may be non-trivial, these are examples (and there are more) of non-trivial coverage: [23], [24], [25].Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:A Train, Please note that other editors, including Icewhiz, Czar, Cllgbksr, and I have (above) each in turn also wanted to be satisfied that there has been WP:SIGCOV. Each of us looked for and found sources that satisfy with their depth and intellectual gravitas. I both create pages about books and edit at AFD on books and writers, and with multiple, formal book reviews and in-depth articles in major publications this book simply flies past Criterion # 1 in WP:BOOKCRIT - even though it is, of course, a political prank not unlike the Sokal affair.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:11, 26 July 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.