Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alphabet to E-mail: How Written English Evolved and Where It's Heading

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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 02:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet to E-mail: How Written English Evolved and Where It's Heading

Very few Google results, none of which are indicative of a book which is notable on its own. Should maybe be merged into the currently nonexistant article for the author. Rampart 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a little thin and sales-like but the book is listed on some sale sites and seems notable. [1]. meshach 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the book is notable and with reliable sources such as Amazon, this article just needs an expansion as well as a cleanup. Terence Ong 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of Information An Amazon.com listing is not a reliable source. It's not that hard to get - whether through vanity publishing or other means. Still there after a year (yes I've emailed Amazon about this - twice. Nothing happened.) Bwithh 06:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to stub as per nom There is no substantive claim made in the article that this book is encyclopedically notable. There are numerous authors and books - most of them academic - on the history of the English language, the effect of new media on language, styles of internet communication etc etc etc out here. Not every one of these is encyclopedically notable. Wikipedia is not a book catalogue and having a listing on online bookstores is certainly not evidence of notability. What needs to be shown is that this book is regarded as "smarter than the average bear", so to speak. Amazon.com sales ranking is currently above 1.02 million. This does not rule out that the book is influential, but the Amazon listing is not a persuasive argument in favour of such an assertion. No prejudice against merging some of this content to a stub for Naomi S. Baron, although whether she passes WP:PROF is a matter for later debate (Baron does not have the profile of say, the British linguist David Crystal). Bwithh 06:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Merge to what stub? Make up your mind. Delete and merge are mutually exclusive. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "/" means "or". Also see nom. Stub can be created Bwithh 13:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a nice little book with reviews in professional circles but not a very notable work. --Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, not sure this meets WP:BK and the article is in pretty bad shape but Worldcat shows that this book is in many university libraries which is indicative of some interest. However, it's important to remember that database listings such as Amazon's are not reliable sources. Yes, they confirm that the book exists but beyond that they are of no use since the book description is most likely written by the publisher (not reliable because of conflict of interest). What would convince me is some indication that the book has been cited as reference often enough to merit a mention here. Pascal.Tesson 07:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree as above. --PremKudva^Talk 10:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pascal.Tesson and professional reviews mentioned. They just need to be included. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability test --Orange Mike 16:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a conversion table for Amazon rankings [2] a sales rank of 1,000,000 out of the 4,000,000 books for sale would indicate about 3 sold every 500 days. Was it ever relatively popular, like a ranking of above 100,000? I could not find any published reviews. But I would take a look at it if I saw it in a library. Edison 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because its on amazon doesn’t mean its notable Fledgeling 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletionists are arguing either that its not high enough on amazon, or that an amazon listing is meaningless--two contradictory propositions. Serious book, importuant publisher, likely to be of interest to WP people. DGG 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, published book, reviewed in notable publications. Needs references, but they are available. Proto::type 13:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, non-vanity book by well-known publisher. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not a book directory. Books that change the world in a meaningful way maybe merit an article. Catalogs don't. --Improv 21:20, 30 November 2006 (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.