Talk:The International Man

The book itself and the many different situations that occurred to make it popular at the time in my opinion cannot be given the required level of detail if the article was to be merged with the Doug Casey entry. While it is related due to Doug Casey being the author, that fact alone is not enough for merging. The standalone article also discusses what the book has done and how it has continued to live as an on-going project. My personal vote would be for it to stay as it's own entity as it has more value that way. Crispy Beef (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Out of Print and Dated - Primarily used for Marketing

This entry supports the marketing effort of Doug Casey using Wikipedia as a tool for that purpose.

Entry does not need to be merged with Casey, it needs to occupy one line within the Casey Bio as a published work.

Lfrankbalm (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)lfrankbalmLfrankbalm (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree profoundly that this page should be deleted. The book is an important work worth having its own entry. I see that other books have their own entries and would suggest that if you don't see the need for this book to then it is because you haven't read it nor do you see the increasing significance of the internationalism movement. Robert13 00:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

Collapsed, lest editors be misled that there actually was a merge discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. The result of this discussion was to merge the page with the primary entry Consensus to merge. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An IP editor added this already-closed discussion in a single edit to justify a page move against consensus. I am collapsing it and removing the merge notice from the article. Ivanvector (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Just Obscure, Marketing Related, Original Research or Not Notable

This is an entry about an out of print book.

Most likely if you are not a "fan" of this author you will not find this entry. It is sort of interesting that Wikipedia states that this is ok as follows; because if it is Obscure does not mean not notable.

Another layer of problem here is the fact that current references infer a connection to an out of print book. This link is erroneous and constitutes original research. This is in turn related to notability whereby original research has been created to present a timeliness outside the scope of the article. (more on scope later)Lfrankblam (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The test then would be is this entry notable?

This entry needs to be tested to notability.. If it is notable (which I doubt) it should be kept. IF it is not notable it needs to be merged or deleted.Lfrankblam (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

SCOPE - Concise subject matter for this wikipedia entry

The scope of this entry is clearly defined in the first sentence of this entry;

The International Man is a book written by American free market economist and serial investor Doug Casey. Originally published in 1978..........

The entry has been adjusted to reflect the same.

Please see Wikipedia:Scope for an explanation of what is acceptable for this article.Lfrankblam (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit to the Concise

I have edited this entry to speak to the subject matter;

1) What is the subject matter of this entry? A book

2) What is the main point of the book? Prior to the edit was a paragraph about when the book was written, within the context of Rhodesian instability. I am sure that this is contained within the book but is it not the main point of the book.

3) The main point of the book is that it might be in your interests to expatriate within the context of instability

The reader now knows what the subject matter is and what the main point of the book is. Prior to this edit this entry was all over the map.. referencing things which were outside the scope of the book, and listing as the primary point the historic context rather than the main point.

The entry is now readable, concise, and understandable. Is it notable?

Lfrankblam (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)