Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali and Nino – Literary Robbery!

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. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali and Nino – Literary Robbery![edit]

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

I have looked only at the article, and not on any search engines, but it seems to me that the book may not meet WP:GNG.

I know this is an academic book and that it is governed by the special criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Academic and technical books. But still, I suspect that having only four WorldCat hits may be a bad sign.

[Edit: This book was cited zero times according to Google Scholar. It has zero Google News Archive hits.]

Dear author(s): Please read WP:42 before creating any articles in the future. Also, if you do decide to create more articles even after having WP:42, then please use Wikipedia:Articles for creation every time.

Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there's no need to also !vote delete in your own deletion nomination. Stalwart111 08:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - you might want to rethink you nomination here. You demand that authors use WP:AFC (which is not required) but openly admit to not having performed the checks at WP:BEFORE (which is required). You may well be right about notability but this nomination probably needs some work. Stalwart111 08:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. I have slightly improved my nomination. —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have. Nicely done. Stalwart111 03:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the book nor the author is notable. (I'd normaqlly suggest for an article like this merging with the article on the auhtoor, but I don't think that is sustainable either.) Only 4 holdings for an English language book published in 2009 is pretty much proof of non-notability in any subject whatsoever. This is essentially being used to publish a summary of very specialized research in WP, which is a general encyclopedia. We should have a rather high acceptance of specialization, because the millions of special topics is what make up an encyclopedia, but this is overdoing it. However, I disagree with general advice to use afc. The current reviewing standard at afc is so low that I recommend it only to those with so strong a COI that they should not write directly in mainspace. It's true that this article could well be viewed as an attempt at publicity for the author, and probably even the current standards at afc would have adequately dealt with it. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Does the above mean that AfC is too lenient and accepts too many COI articles? Or does it mean that AfC is too stringent and rejects articles even when it shouldn't have? —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to be that both are an issue. We have articles about notable subjects being rejected at AFC because of minor stylistic concerns. We also have articles being accepted that go straight to AFD (or worse, qualify for speedy deletion). Neither is a good outcome. I've created about 150 articles and have never used AFC, nor would I recommend others use it, let alone insist as much. Stalwart111 03:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely fails notability. Just another attempt by the Azerbaijan International COI SPA editors to coopt the Wikipedia discussion about Ali and Nino. Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2013 (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.