Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Warm Mirror Neuron On A Memory


 * 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. -- Lear's Fool 03:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A Warm Mirror Neuron On A Memory

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I previously deleted this as A7; it was re-posted, and PROD was contested. It is still awfully close to A7 this time around, and makes no indication of notability. Appears to fail both WP:BK and WP:GNG. Submitter has apparent COI. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 02:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

message from user programmabilities: hello. i created this article. what is wrong with it? i did everything correctly. everything is right. if there is a problem with this article, i will fix it. --once i understand what the problem is and how to fix it. so please do not delete. it is a work in progress. thankyou, user: programmabilities - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programmabilities (talk • contribs) 02:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability for books is explained at WP:BK and WP:GNG. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has inclusion standards; for the broader explanation see WP:Notability. Regards, CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 02:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

message from user programmabilities: my address to the issue regarding notability: the book is in libraries. it is in the google book project. and copies of the book are selling here: > Amazon.com/dp/B0065KBQR0 > BarnesAndNoble.com/w/a-warm-mirror-neuron-on-a-memory-e-e/1108078359 > Smashwords.com/books/view/116236 > books.Google.com/books?id=cUldeL1jf2wC thankyou, user: programmabilities --programmabilities (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is not about who sells the book, it is about who noted the book, as in substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources; in the case of books, acceptable references to show notability are generally reviews (by professionals) in the news media or specialized publications. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 02:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

message from user programmabilities: being owned and read by people AND being read in libraries creates "interest". --these people google the title of the book and want to see it's article on wikipedia. ...i understand your concerns now. i understand the issue you have now. thanks for explaining. i hope you will decide to keep the article. the book is selling and more libraries are stocking it. thanks. --programmabilities (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - pure promotional placement (advertising, spamming), should qualify as a Speedy Delete; the above discussion makes it obvious that author of article is author of book seeking product sales. No independent sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

...you can argue any BOOK article is "advertising spam / promotional placement". your case is a poor excuse. ....the facts of the article remain. as should the article remain in wikipedia. you have changed your argument. first you said it did not have enough notoriety. now you say it is because of advertising. that is inconsistent. now as to your latest additional criticism of "no independent sources". --the wiki documentation concerning book articles mentions that Google Books counts on that score. ....your user page says you are an "inclusionist". --so your agruements are very strange indeed. --programmabilities (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete - of course i am the author. --and that is what the handbook says is best.


 * Please do not make remarks about other users. As it happens I do whatever I can to keep articles that need work, often adding citations and developing the text. I'd point out that I am not the person who nominated this article for deletion. You may cite a Google Book if there is one that discusses the book in the article, but obviously an electronic version of the book itself is not an independent source for itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - If you are contributing to Wikipedia on behalf of your own clients, you owe it to both them and the other editor's here to make sure you understand the standards for content here and how creating an article for your own book could cause a severe conflict of interest. SaveATreeEatAVegan 10:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No independent reviews or independent coverage. Creator is posting "Where to buy" details in this discussion. Suggest speedy delete as advertising.  Tigerboy1966  00:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

--programmabilities (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * i looked at another book's article on wikipedia. that article listed a "Creator is posting "Where to buy" details" link on its list of refernces. so i thought that maybe this was wanted. so i added a "Creator is posting "Where to buy" details" link on my articles page. i will now delete this link to amazon.com. but it does show me that my article is being target for deletion by overzealous detraction. because i copied the idea of adding a link to amazon from another wikipidia book article. ...i think it was the article for johnathan livingston seagul or else it was Graveties rainbow.


 * And WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't an argument either. Feel free to name the other article and people can see if it needs attention also. It happens to dozens of articles every day. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This is getting embarrassing for the creator and the author, assuming that they are two different people. I think it would be kindest (seriously) to close this one early.  Tigerboy1966  10:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

--programmabilities (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment --another insult. nothing to do with the fact of the article. ...the only reason why this article should be deleted is the reason of "notoriety". well a new publication takes time to get references (reviews) and citations. so i say leave the article. i will add a review and a citation when this new book receives one.
 * Comment (reply to programmabilities): I've got a couple of points here.
 * Notoriety is distinct from notability on Wikipedia. Being famous does not necessarily mean that something has received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Conversely, there have been topics which have achieved notability but not notoriety (I'm not sure how many people there are who go about their days regularly discussing prehistoric plants).
 * Yes, a new publication does take time to be reviewed, but the fact of the matter is that there is no coverage right now. The time to create the article is when coverage of the book exists, not when you think that it might exist some time in the future.
 * As for your comment in response to Tigerboy1966, people do make mistakes, so it would have been best for you to familiarize yourself with the appropriate guideline (External links) before going by another book's example. Chris the Paleontologist  (talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.