Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grameen Social Business Model

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grameen Social Business Model[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article is about a book. While the topics covered in the book are notable. It does not appear that this book is. There are existing articles on Muhammad Yunus, Microcredit, Social business and the Social business model. Those articles are where the information and citations that are currently in this article belong. This book fails the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books). At the best it has had the routine coverage of an average non-fiction book. There is nothing outstanding about this book, no matter how worthy the topics covered. Notability is not transferred. At the time this Afd was proposed, this article was, understandably, an orphan. The citations, for the most part are not about the book; when they are, they are promotional, made in passing, not reliable, or even circular like the one to cyclopaedia.net a Wikipedia mirror. Delete as non-notable. --Bejnar (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been noticed at the WikiProject Books talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above discussion by Bejnar. There are no reliable sources about the book, rather than its subject, in the article and I could not find any via a google search. I see only one holding library in WoldCat (http://www.worldcat.org/title/grameen-social-business-model-a-manifesto-for-proletariat-revolution/oclc/738345405&referer=brief_results), which is much less than I would expect if the book were notable and I had simply failed to find the sources that do in fact exist. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article should stay because it improves to encyclopedic standards. Some reliable sources added e.g., Times of India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wong qiiang (talk • contribs) 07:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

— Wong qiiang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —

this article should not be deleted. my first reaction to this AfD template was "Vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Doppler (talk • contribs) 07:46, 1 January 2014‎
requesting for undeletion of this article because this book gained international recognition and use many reliable sources e.g., Barnes and Nobel, Amazon, Google-book, Times of India. So remove the above Afd tag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pronobnath (talk • contribs) 08:03, 1 January 2014‎
Don't delete it the article satisfy encyclopedic standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asumiko Nakamura (talk • contribs) 08:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Requests for undeletion. It is apparent that some people want to delete this article because of conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhang junn (talk • contribs) 08:35, 1 January 2014‎

!votes struck out due to blocked sockpuppet. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The objectors are all suspected sockpuppets of the page creator, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ode203. – Fayenatic London 17:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The publisher of the book is AuthorHouse, a self-publishing company. The author of this article (Ode203?) seems to have a good grasp of the topics Bejnar notes above, like Social business, so I encourage him to help build those articles with scholarly research. maclean (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage about this book in independent reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the page appears to be a precis of the book rather than an aarticle about it. The citations given are for the arguments/persons covered in it rather than for the book itself. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't see how it meets WP:NBOOKS. coverage merely confirms the book exists. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2014 (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.