Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naked Conversations: How Blogs are Changing the Way Businesses Talk with Customers (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naked_Conversations[edit]

Not notable, PR, Blogcruft Drinkadrink (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability WP:NTEMP WP:NNC
PR - The content doesn't even delve into context or dialogue of the content
Secondary sources? Other than cross-linking bloggers?
This book is created + mostly edited by a lone-wolf (possible sockpuppet/business associate?) Special:Contributions/Mknac
Associated with blogcruft PR at Robert Scoble (recently won a landslide keep) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shel_Israel, who edits his own articles. It is typical for bloggers and their business associates to puff and defend each others articles.

I enjoy that certain users want to stick up for their heroes, however I believe that's the people choice. --Drinkadrink (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been subject to accusations of bad faith. Please don't mistake my naiveté for meanness[1]. I care about making WP a good place for everyone, this book genuinely lacks notability. Sure, it's written by a popular blogger, perhaps it can get a single sentence on his page, not an article. I highly doubt there is much useful about this book per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinkadrink (talk • contribs) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unsourced does not mean not sourceable. There's a large range of reviews and other sources that can be used to expand the article. StarM 03:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews? This is blogcruft sources from tech magazines. Be wary of the low quality, high quantity of blogcruft sources. Everyone one of these are 1 sentence cameos on magazines saying "Scoble wrote this book", that doesn't warrant an article, maybe a sentence on his page. Not critical review going to substance of the book. Instead of a literary marvel, this is a buzz book by a blogger. This book didn't really spark any debate or change anything in the blogosphere. I recommend deletion and we can put it in a section in Robert Scoble. --Drinkadrink (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment so you're advocating a merge WP:BK disagrees with you and I see the Washington Post as well as the Guardian, last time I checked both were reliable sources and not buzz. StarM 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment No merger is needed, It's already in Robert Scoble. WP:GHITS WP:BIGNUMBER and per nom. Fleeting references and superficial looks are more of a PR statement. If this book was important enough to warrant a whole article we would have sleus of hard sources. There isn't much to say about this book. No one has even bothered to describe its innards (which is great evidence it was blogfans who jumped on the bad wagon for a week a threw the book out), so it's probably not notable. This is a book you buy when you fly an airplane. --Drinkadrink (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I get it, you don't like it. The fct that no one has added the sources to the article means it needs fixing, not deleting since the sources exist. I linked to the reviews, not ghits. It doesn't matter where you read or buy the book, if it meets WP:BK, which this does. StarM 13:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; as with the first AfD nomination, this appears to be a bad-faith nomination based on the nominator's personal dislike of the subject. The nominator's contributions this year have solely been in the pursuit of deleting information related to Robert Scoble and Shel Israel, this book's authors. Usually when I see something like that, I tend to suspect the person in question is not seeking to improve the encyclopedia through careful application of policy. Warren -talk- 05:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely notable, and also agree with Warren's above statement. Recommend that nominator reviews notability guidelines and deletion criteria. Ceran^→//forge 14:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I just added three more references to the article. Passes WP:BOOK. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the improved article and tag for expansion per discussions above. Nice job all! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep "Blogcruft," "blogcruft," and "blogcruft" are not reasons to delete an article; it's a reason to improve to improve it. Thankfully, some editors have started that process. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 04:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moved article and AfD to correct title. -- Banjeboi 17:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Book meets GNG and sources have been added. -- Banjeboi 17:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (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.