Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The J Curve (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 keep. No consensus to delete this and refs that show it meets WP:BKCRIT; issues of COI/PAID can be handled outside of AfD (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The J Curve (book)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This book does not meet the standards of WP:NBOOK. The only source—the Economist’s 2006 Top Books list—is not anything close to establishing notability. Moreover, as documented here and here, it is very likely the company and/or associates of the author, Ian Bremmer, have been engaged in at least a decade of edits from a slew of accounts with the purpose of using Wikipedia as an advertisement. This article is one such example. It should, at best, be part of Ian Bremmer’s page. WhinyTheYounger (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to say that I think redirect to author is a reasonable course of action, as discussed below. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BKCRIT, "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." In addition, to the economist article, it is not hard to find reviews. For example, Carnegie Council, or Foreign Policy magazine (this piece links to a review in the Wall Street Journal, but the link was busted and I'm not going to go find it), or The Telegraph, or BBC, or The Futurist, and I think we could count Military Medicine, too. It satisfies NBOOK criteria. If there is a consensus on combining with the Bremmer page in order to best deal with CoI edition, that is a very reasonable decision that I support. However, on notability, the book crosses the threshold with room to spare. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to author agreed it's reasonably notable, but it's also undeclared paid editing by one of a ring of meatpuppets. the article dates from before our present PAID policy, but meatpupettry was always prohibited. the bio article already contains material on the book, in fact rather too much material, and the section there will need to be abbreviated. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is there an "original sin" policy that says that notable subjects should be deleted if the person who created the article had a CoI? If the book is notable, then the article can be edited to take out the promotional content. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is (or should be) an "original sin" policy, but I do think with minimally followed pages a good solution to biased editing, including CoI, is to consolidate to centralize the content. It can be easier to achieve proper weight, balance, and context when the content is consolidated. There has been one major content change to this page (deletion of the horrible Trivia section) since it was established in 2007, which could certainly justify redirecting to author to get the most good editors reading it and adding on to it. Keep is the right decision based on GNG or NBOOK, but to make the content the best it can be, the best decision is probably redirect to author. AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2020 (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.