Talk:Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spam[edit]

The language in the article seems to suggest that it was created either by an ardent Norris fan, or a PR person. It seems to be partly copied from [[http://www.amazon.com/Black-Belt-Patriotism-Reawaken-America/dp/1596985585#RG1OJPG8IE274|an amazon.com review]]. Overall, the article does not seem to neutrally describe the contents of the book.

as this article has already been deleted and nobody has been involved in cleaning it up, I am for a db-spam tag here -- aenus —Preceding undated comment added 11:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I would not concur with speedy deletion, just yet, although it's patently apparent the page will have to be severely rearranged and cut down on hyperbole. Although it's not saying much, lesser books seem to have their Wikipedia articles, and it would be a bit of a shame to waste this much effort outright. So, I will try to make the first changes now, then we'll just have to hope there are enough interested people to develop the article further if/before deletion or a severe summarization+merge into the main Chuck Norris article is in order. Decoy (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, pretty much concluded with my rewrite. Now what is needed is for people to review what I did. Firstly because such extensive rewrites based on an existing article alone will almost always introduce some POV in themselves. It's going to be there, even if I very much tried to avoid it, and it needs to be removed. And second, somebody with access to the primary work should really do something about the article; the overall structure and whatever accents me and the original writer left should be gauged against the text as a whole. (Wikification wouldn't hurt either.) Decoy (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

I am unsure as to whether this article's neutrality problem has been solved and am seeking consensus. Rubbish computer 13:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot find any record of an AfD referred to above.Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest problem I would say OTHER than neutrality, is lack of sources. I did a quick search and could only find 'Amazon' type posts. IF there aren't independent RSs, should this be an AfD? I see from the history that a great deal of promotional text has been pruned, but the only way greater context could be given is including any critical reviews (if they exist).Pincrete (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth the trouble, I think. I vote for deletion. Activist (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with above that while the article may have problems, neutrality doesn't appear to be one of them at this time. Might be worth contacting whomever posted the tag, if possible, to get their take on the matter. DonIago (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]