Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The J Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall

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 delete - stronger views put across by those in favour of deletion, most of the keep votes are from one IP anyway. — FireFox ^(talk) _{12:37, 29 August 2006}

The J Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall[edit]

PROD tag removed without comment or improvement. Advertising for nonnotable book. User:Angr 14:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article improved in accordance with user comment. 19 August 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.120.150 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 August 2006.
- Not true. This comparison of the page between the time I listed it on AFD and now shows that all that's happened is the deletion of an image, the addition of a reference (but no information based on that reference), and the addition of a stub template. User:Angr 14:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In context of other similar political book stubs. 19 August 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.120.150 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 19 August 2006.
Neutral I'm really waffling on this one. The author seems notablish, the book seems to have a highish profile. The article is pretty clearly vanity, but that doesn't necessarily mean it must be deleted. Needs to be cut down and rewritten in neutral language at the very least. - Richfife 16:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - leave the NPOV tags on it, but it's not like Simon & Schuster is a vanity press - passes my unofficial Amazon test. ;) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak keep~~ I was the one who initially protested the style and language of the article. Some improvement has been done; more is needed. But as for notability, I'm in line with User:Revragnarok. Medico80 11:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I go neutral. Don't know what precedens is for unpublished books... Medico80 20:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: The book is currently unreleased. So this article is nothing more than self-promotion having been written up by a press agent and the article's statements can not possibly be peer reviewed in its current state. Google hits for ("The J Curve" "Ian Bremmer" -wikipedia) = 507. I agree the author is notable, but the book has yet to establish itself to via third parties. Fails: Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 14:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it is published and reviewed properly. An uninvolved party should do the rewrite as well, though we can't mandate that of course. -- nae'blis 17:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with user Netsnipe Angelbo 20:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Still Keep~~ (one vote per user): All fair points, but a number of reviews are already posted on the book's website, some lengthy and from established journals. I presume they are from review copies, which appear to be selling on Ebay. 67.86.120.150 11:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notable author and publisher, no discernable bias in text. Too early to tell notability of work. 216.204.50.6 15:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's too early to determine the notability of the work. It's not even published yet and, per NetSnipe's google test, obviously doesn't have a preemptive cult following like, for instance, the seventh book in the Harry Potter series or Snakes on a Plane. It could turn out to be a complete flop. Srose (talk) 15:48, 22 August 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.