Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uprising (Diamond and Silk book)

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 redirect‎ to Diamond and Silk#Books. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uprising (Diamond and Silk book)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The only sources about this book are two prior to release descriptions The Washington Examiner (the right wing Daily Beast) and the Daily Beast (The left wing Washington Examiner), both tabloids that have many articles we should not use. Further, they aren't even reviews, they are reporting on a single allegation that they were offered money to ditch trump... This is not coverage on the book, and the book itself never received any coverage as far as I can see. I suggest a redirect or merge (if we really want to keep the bribe thing) to Diamond and Silk, as they are the authors. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Diamond and Silk#Books per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I found an article published on 19 August 2020 from the Washington Examiner, Diamond and Silk’s candid new book offers steadfast praise for Donald Trump. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Washington Examiner:
  There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled by following the appropriate guideline.
  Cunard (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cunard. I'm not opposed to merging select material but it should only be done with the non-controversial material. The bribery allegation should not be included unless it can be sourced to something more reliable than the WE or the book. Offhand I didn't see anyone discussing it online so I have to assume that it was considered to be a moot point even for the book's target audience. I would say that we could merge maybe the sentence "The book talks about Diamond and Silk switching parties from Democratic to GOP in 2015 and their experiences since then." but that's about it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:33, 19 May 2025 (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.