Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Around the World in 40 Feet


 * 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..  Citi Cat   ♫ 01:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Around the World in 40 Feet

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The required notability criteria does not seem to be satisfied for this newly published book - it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". Caniago 04:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - No evidence of notability on google or even claimed in the article. ISBN doesn't show up on WorldCat; author is also the managing director of the company that published it; and the creator of the article has littered the external links sections of other articles with this book as 'further reading.' Another clear case of a self-published writer using Wikipedia to promote their non-notable book on the cheap. bobanny 05:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Self-promotion. Consider blocking the author for linkspam on other articles, a particularly heinous offense. Barring that, perhaps a flogging. Realkyhick 06:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete —  non-notable :-)  Stwalkerster  talk 14:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- Endroit 14:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nippon Yusen — This book appears to be used as promotional material for the Nippon Yusen company. (Trim down the contents if necessary, when merging.)--Endroit 15:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nippon Yusen per Endroit. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There's nothing in the article that tells us anything useful about the company. The book might be a good primary source for NYK (though that article mostly needs secondary sources), and perhaps this page could re-direct to the company's article, but as it stands, there's nothing to merge. bobanny 19:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not that the book tells something useful about the company, but that the book marks an interesting note in the history of the company. I'm not aware of too many other incidents like this one, and having it documented in a coffee table book is certainly unusual. I think it would add a point of interest to the Nippon Yusen article. As Endroit wrote, it should be trimmed significantly when merged. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I wouldn't redirect. We dont redirect from either references or primary sources. But the amount of links added is not really a very severe case of linkspam. DGG (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Hey folks, I'm the one who created the entry. Being one of the editors who worked on the book, I posted an entry here because I believed there would be interest in the subject matter - from a broader socio-economic perspective as it deals with containerization and globalization. Since the book is so new, there has been not many citable references but I did try to include a few in the external links section. Anyhow, I am totally new here on Wikipedia so I was not aware of all the rules, especially when it comes to adding to other entries' "external links" or "additional reading" sections. The intention was not spamming. Now I have tried to "wikify" the entry and posted it. Please have a look. Totalfactor 11:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC/GMT +8)
 * At this point, I see no independent reviews. That's what is needed. It's not technicalities, but the basic principle that this is an encyclopedia, and things must be sourced to show that they're important.DGG (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto. It's not up to us to determine if it's interesting or not; if sociologists or economists take interest and publish something, it might merit an article then. See WP:COI. bobanny 23:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not notable now, but if it gets reviewed or gets significant attention, it should be re-created. Ne ra n e i   (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2007 (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.