Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbon Shift (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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Shift (book)[edit]

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

Propagandistic collection of essays; to my mind the article is primarily promotional, with bios of the authors which should just have been links to the wp articles on them, over-extensive summaries, and a purely PR style of writing. From the lede sentence on, I consider it too promotional to rewrite, & that I agree on the underlying issues with the authors is irrelvant DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm taking the challenge on of re-writing this and I've deleted a huge chunk of the article because it was such a WP:POINT-y mess that it was just easier to delete the info than to bother trying to re-write it to where it was neutral. I'll agree that the style read as very promotional and propagandistic, especially the review section that seemed to attack anyone with a differing opinion. I also found that not all of the reviews were as glowing as they were initially written, such as the Quill and Quire review which was more neutral than anything. I'll see what I can find and I've reduced the article to a bare bones state, but it's better than what it was previously. Most of the primary sources have been removed, as has the completely unnecessary bios for each contributor to the book.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My answer for the previous wreck-of-an-article would have been "nuke it to so stub", but now Tokyogirl79 has sort of already done that. I think that the book meets wp:notability, but note that something looks squirrley with two supposedly different references having the same lengthy title. North8000 (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the full length title of the book, at least the original title. The publishers changed the title when they republished it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After a search for sources, I can't find any evidence the subject satisfies the general notability guideline or WP:NBOOK. I agree with David that the purpose is principally promotional; the article was created and principally edited by the assistant to the book's editor. I commend Tokyogirl79's salvage attempt, but I don't see WP:SIGCOV. The editor is notable; the book is probably not. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the editor responsible for this piece, I have been following the debate carefully. As a new user, I have to admit that I was affronted by the tone of some of the comments made about it, and having spent some time delving into Wikipedia's policy's especially surrounding possible COI and new users, I think I am justified in feeling slightly abused. I refer you to Wikipedia: Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I am a new user, and admit that I started editing without the possibility of COI crossing my mind. I can now see how the article may have seemed promotional, having been created with an attempt at being inclusive rather than exclusive of what I thought was pertinent and interesting detail. I am a research assistant of the editor, but, in studying the policy on editing by those with a possible COI, I understand that this is not prohibited. Such editors must be VERY CAUTIOUS to remain extremely neutral...something I want to practise doing. I admit that my encyclopedic writing style needs work, but that should not keep worthy articles from existing.

As to the worthiness, I must point out that this book does meet the WP:NBOOK criteria: It has been the topic of discussion on TV interviews such as with TVO's Allan Gregg and reviewed in such noted journals as Quill and Quire. More importantly, it is on the required reading lists for courses on the Environment, Economy, Public Policy, Complex Behavior, etc. at many North American Universities: U. of Toronto, U. of Ottawa, U. of British Columbia, Lafayette, and Utah for example. Also, most of the contributors are notable in their own right, being in Wikipedia themselves, and having many other notable publications.

In keeping with the neutral tone, which I hope to master before long, I accept the changes made by Tokyogirl79 and would like to thank her for her help. I hope this clarification helps to lead to a consensus to keep the book entry in Wikipedia, which, I know, is striving to be more inclusive rather than exclusive. Jbghewer (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2012 (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.