Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAJ (2)

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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Johnleemk | Talk 14:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

GAJ

Advertisement for someone's self-published, internet-only, non-notable book. PROD deleted without comment. Note: Apparently not the same content on which we had an AfD already. Sandstein 21:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Nomination retracted, has received multiple press coverage per recent additions, borderline notable. Sandstein 09:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I wrote this article. I am a student from Montreal (User: Kieranfox though I'm not logged in right now) and met the author at a reading of this book. Arguments for the article: i) the author link is 'false' because I'm not aware of how to create a disambiguation and write a new author article of someone by the same name. ii) The book is not 'internet-only' but is simply available for free ALSO on the internet. I read it in a hard copy signed by the author, so I know. iii) Is the book non-notable? Have you read it? Do you have any arguments for why there is nothing notable about this book or its author? Does the fact that it is his first book make it irrelevant somehow? Please elaborate. iv) This is in no way an 'advertisement', especially considering the book is available entirely for free and no one stands to gain anything financially from this page; and as my 'relationship' to the author is, well, basically nonexistent. He signed my book once a couple years ago. I put the page up merely because the man and the book are fascinating and the information is well synthesized, PUBLISHED and available to anyone interested in reading it. I read over the What Wiki Is page. Isn't that what this site is supposed to be about, cataloguing and elucidating interesting information that has already been published and established elsewhere? Anyway I appreciate your vigilance, in that this might be construed as some crackpot simply advertising his own crap through Wiki, but honestly I would suggest you give the book a read or quick once-over (it is a short and quick read in any case) and then see if you still find its inclusion so abhorrent. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.160.140 (talk • contribs)

Hello there, and welcome to Wikipedia. In principle, you are quite right about what Wikipedia is - but I also suggest that you take a quick glance at what Wikipedia is not - namely, not a collection of indiscriminate information, or a catalogue of all the books in the world. That means, we only carry information on notable subjects - if we were to have an article on every pamphlet, screed, private thesis or self-published book, Wikipedia would quickly fill with POV cruft, grow unmanageavly large and lose encyclopedic value as a whole.

For this book, this means we need proof that more people than its author (and possibly you) care about it: a wide circulation, a noted scientific impact, substantial press coverage, etc., all through verifiable sources. Hope this helps, and have fun contributing more to Wikipedia! Sandstein 07:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Sandstein. Your points are well taken, and I have included links to other press coverage that I could find in online format. I have to question the notion though that more people knowing or talking about a thing gives it more value, or a more deserving place in Wikipedia, though in essence the logic is valid... but one need only take a look at pop culture to see the flaws of this argument. I think that if you really believe it's invalid, I would ask you to read over the book (at least in part), and then decide if it is notable or not, rather than assuming that since mainstream academia has passed it by, you should too. That's all I ask. If after some reading you still think any mention of it should be obliterated here on Wiki, I won't fight with the decision. Thanks. (Kieranfox)

The recently added links indicate that the book has received multiple reviews. With (weak) notability thus established, I retract the nomination and vote Keep. That said, no, I won't look through the book. That would be judging its merit, which is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Only notability is relevant (which is why we have an article on e.g. Mein Kampf). Sandstein 09:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, worse than before when it stood for Gamers Against Jack. — Mar. 29, '06 [07:06] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

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.