Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machiavelli and The Mayflower

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 speedy delete. G7 delete per post by Bgillesp on my talk page Nancy ^talk 09:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Machiavelli and The Mayflower[edit]

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

A book with no indication of notability, so does not satisfy WP:BK. A web search turns up this page, the publisher's site and a few places selling it. Also conflict of interest issues, self-published, and largely promotional content. But primarily lack of notability. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, and article created by the author, who has recently decided to start advertising it all across Wikipedia. Tb (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of notability. (GregJackP (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Notability. Although article creator and book author claims notability, he does not provide the evidence, not in the article. Arnoutf (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability.--Boson (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning you objections and those of arnoutf, I have some of my own:

I have never hidden the fact that I am the author of the book;
Notability has been shown
The article contains no jargon
Language corrected to concentrate on content; there is no (and never has been any) advertisement;

Concerning your actions

The request to add links came from someone Wikipedia, not come from me; I followed the instructions and placed links to all relevant material I could find concerning European culture as it relates to religion and to politics; that is a wide area;
I am unaware of the maximum number of links expected for a topic: what is the number?
This is new work; others say that it is influential and original material;
The novelty and the complexity of the work means that the writer is best qualified to launch the article to ensure that the base correctly reflects the work; as time goes on, it will be added to by others;
I have posted images to the site on which I hold the copyright a the author; noon else could have posted them, so necessarily I had to author the site
The content completes the work of Hofstede or of Trompenaars; there is statistical analysis in the book to prove this, but I will change the language to "builds on";
The article seeks not to promote the book, but to illuminate thinking on European cultural typology; the ideas are new and dissociable from the name of the book;

--Bgillesp (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)bgillesp[reply]

comment - thank you for your comments. Unfortunately they do not address the concerns, and so why this AfD was created, that the book is not notable. I would suggest you review the criteria at WP:N and in particular WP:BK for guidelines on what makes a topic in general and a book in particular notable enough for inclusion here, then use that to update the article with reasons for notability, backed up by references to reliable sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly and unequivocally failing Wikipedia's notability requirement for books. The conflict of interest is a concern but not in itself a reason for deletion. I don't agree that the article is spammy but it does appear to exist mainly as a coatrack to disseminate the author's original research. Nancy ^talk 12:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to specify which words used in the article lead you to the coatrack conclusion. The article informs upon the thesis of the book which is pure Wiki; would you criticise the Weber thesis or Rousseau as being coatrack? I am sure that I could find opinion of living philosophers quoted in Wiki that you would qualify as coatrack. I obviously agree that the COI is not a reason for concern because the author himself or herself is the best person to summarise content at the outset and is the only one who is authorised to introduce his or her own copyrighted material onto the site. Sadly, anyone who works in the field of Social psychology and cultural anthropolgy has not mathematics to prove a position. Thanks for a glimmer of support in this nightmare.--Bgillesp (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)bgillesp[reply]

I should have thought it was fairly obvious as aside from the first sentence the whole of the rest of the article is your (i.e. the books author) summary of the arguments and conclusions presented in the book. The article is not about the book, it is about the subject of the book, ergo coatrack. Nancy ^talk 13:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vallaje writes on discussion page: It is illuminating, interesting and also very challenging to the reader. It works at a number of levels: It satisfied any ignorance of much of the political and historical antecedents of Europe. It challenged some preconceptions about accumulated knowledge and it greatly enriched suspicions that Europeans and their interactions are far more complex than you might think. Does it answer all questions about Europeans? No. But it certainly advances the reader further along the road of understanding. In summary an excellent book that answers many questions and solves many conundrums but actually provokes the reader to ask more questions than they would have done prior to reading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC) This comment was moved by me from the article to the discussion page--Bgillesp (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)bgillesp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs)
Marigi writes on discussion page: What I found interesting about the book was the contrast between Catholic and Calvinist ethics. One has the impression that the chasm between these two Christian religions causes an unsurmountable communication problem in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs) 13:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to note the sudden appearance of Tb Gregjade and Boson out of the blue; welcome to the Cabala--212.198.132.96 (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)bgillesp[reply]

But not nearly as interesting as the sudden appearance of a bunch of newly created single-purpose accounts at Talk:Machiavelli and The Mayflower to wax lyrical about how great the book is. Not sure what your game is Bob but be aware that we can easily check whether all those accounts are editing from the same IP. If they are you it is sockpuppetry, if they are your friends then it is meatpuppetry, neither of which are acceptable. Nancy ^talk 13:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy,from their comments, at least they have read the book and they are tending to say that it is wrong to remove it, but there is a population of people out there who feel strongly in support but are not Wikipedians; this is the true notablility of the book; it should not lead to class warfare or discrimination, I hope. Also, go ahead and check their origin; is the sudden ganging up of "Wikipedians" sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry? Also how do you class the humiliating, unfair an not-so-faintly libellous words and actions I have had to resist over the past few days?--Bgillesp (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)bgillesp[reply]

vfayad wites on discussion page: I had been conducting acquisition integration for ITT Industries for many years before I retired in 2006. I wish I had read this article / book prior to conducting such acquisition integrations. The cultural differences / barriers between Europeans and Americans and between Europeans is significant. To be able to understand these cultural differences is the first step in developing a plan to conduct a successful integration. vfayad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs)
maybe you should check him out, Nancy--Bgillesp (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)bgillesp[reply]
Delete. No sources = no article. Quantpole (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The author of the page (and the book), made a comment over at WP:EAR. Discussion should be here on the deletion request.
- There he said: I was asked to add links because the article was orphaned, I did so and was told now that there are too many; the article concerns European culture as it relates to religion and to politics; that is a wide area concerning many disciplines. It's not clear who asked him to add links. Perhaps he misunderstood the "orphaned" article notice.
- He said: This is new work; others say that it is influential and original material and that it should be Wikified. Nobody would prevent him from wikifying his work, but if it is original material, it surely doesn't belong here. New books are generally not notable. Perhaps he has misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia.
- He said: The novelty and the complexity of the work means that I, as the writer, am the best qualified to launch the article to ensure that the base correctly reflects the work; as time goes on, it will be added to by others; this has been unjustifiably considered a conflict of interest. This is again a clear indication that anything he would write here is prohibited original research, without reliable sources: his protestation that only he is in a position to accurately comment on his work is an admission that there are no reliable third party sources we could rely on for an article.
- The 2 editors have not read the book and are not qualified to comment on content. One wonders how he knows whether anyone has read his book, except perhaps that it has so few sales he knows every one. Regardless, my objection was based not on the content of the book, but the lack of verifiable third-party secondary sources we could rely on for our article, coupled with the absence of evidence of notability.
- The article seeks not to promote as I have been accused, but to illuminate thinking on European cultural typology and the ideas are totally new. When an author adds an article for his own book, saying it's because the publisher asked him to, the motives are already clear: promotion. Note that here he describes not the purpose of the book, but the purpose of the article: to illuminate with ideas that are "totally new". Wikipedia is not the place to illuminate people with totally new ideas. It has a different purpose.
- One of the two editors has placed far lighter and far more meaningless material about a book &and got away with it; the fact that he appeared within a few days of the first appears to contradict the theory that there are no cabals. I don't know whether this is me or someone else. Regardless, what happened in some other case is not relevant to what should happen here. Tb (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the last point I think he is referring to this (his point 8, my reply). --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You won--Bgillesp (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC) bgillesp[reply]

The author of this article blanked the page but it was reverted. Since the author apparently does not want the page to remain with the flags, it would seem that he intended the page to be deleted. A speedy delete based on CSD G7 (author's request) might therefore be appropriate, though it would probably be appropriate to check with the author first, to see if that was what he intended. This would not prevent re-submission of the article if suitable evidence of notability can be provided. --Boson (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about gaming the system. Let's let this discussion continue and reach a result. Otherwise, we may be here needlessly again in a short while. Tb (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2010 (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.