Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book hidden face of credit

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. Core desat 04:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book hidden face of credit[edit]

Someone afd-tagged the article (a prod tag had been previously removed) but didn't complete the nomination process. The article's author then left a comment on the empty debate page. I'm just filling the gaps in the nomination process so the discussion can begin. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 09:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a book published some years ago. It is not promotion or advertising. This is the first time I am using Wikipedia. And so far it is turning out to be very frustrating, as I seem to be fighting some automated machine.

I tried to follow the format used for other book in the approach to describe the book and its contents. So please someone (not a computer automated response explain to me the necessary corrections)????

I use the following layout to product this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking:_The_Art_of_Exploitation

(the preceding stuff is the original comment left by User:JorgeS on the empty debate page)

Delete per lack of notability/reviews for this book. Corpx (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per lack of notability. Dear Jorge, a) you should not try to promote your own book here; it IS advertising where you have a conflict of interest. Referring to another article is not a good reason to keep this article: it may well be that the other article should be deleted too. This should be speedily deleted.--Gregalton (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this article was written in an neutral and informative way, some one else can make corrections or additions since that is my understanding of the process. It it not discussing if the book is excellent but rather narrating its content the same layout approach I found in other articles about books. Can someone make appropriate corrections and additions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JorgeS (talk • contribs)

Comment: the question that remains is why a book on a common topic, written in French, is notable enough to include in the English-language wikipedia. Please see wp:notability for more on the guidelines on notability. Is the book written about in English (like the English press, or cited in academic studies, or ever referred to)? Noted as a phenomenally new contribution to economics (or whatever)? Why is the book so notable that there should be a wikipedia entry about it? If it has not been re-issued since 1991, why? (For example, Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations is clearly notable. Many books exist, but they are not all written about here, nor should they be).

You should also make your conflict of interest clear if, as it appears, you are the author.--Gregalton (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment. You cite wp:notability but then ask "Is the book written about in English (like the English press, or cited in academic studies, or ever referred to)?" Where does wp:notability say anything about the language of the sources? --Paularblaster (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I only meant it in the sense of potential interest - if the book is only notable because it covers a topic, but there are ones in the same language as this Wikipedia, they would naturally be of more interest (assuming there is no content that is entirely original). But I recognise that is not necessarily a criterion, and that I can't speak to the content of the book. I retract the langague point. It still does not meet notability criteria, however.--Gregalton (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears there really is nothing significant/notable about this book; other than the language it was written and a summary of its contents, there is no mention of whether the book has had any impact on its field of discussion. Pegasus «C¦T» 15:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete While it seems the author of this article may honestly just be a little unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards, that does nothing to establish the notability of the subject, and neither do any of the provided references, some of which are not in EnglishBeeblbrox (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please don't bring the language of the sources back into this discussion. As explained above that is irrelevant and only serves to cloud the issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I assume that the author acted in good faith, but the book does not meet notability criteria. The subject matter should be incorporated into individual articles, such as Identity theft. If someone with no connection to the author believes that the book is an important reference to one of those articles, that independent editor can add a citation to the book as a reference. Adding See also references to this article about the book is not the appropriate way to go. Racepacket (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources given are a library catalog entry of the type which pretty well any book published in Canada would have, two self-published sources and a reference in a promotional newsletter issued by an investment company. A Google web search in English and French only adds a couple of conference speaker bios, and Google book and news archive searches find nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not so sure it is irrelevant. This is an article on the English language version, how can anyone who does not speak or read French verify that these sources even relate to the article, let alone determine the notability of the subject? Beeblbrox (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment again Not usually the type to quote these things but WP:RSUE seems to back my point. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2008 (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.