Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claw Your Way to the Top: How to Become the Head of a Major Corporation in Roughly a Week


 * 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 keep. Flowerparty ■ 11:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Claw Your Way to the Top: How to Become the Head of a Major Corporation in Roughly a Week
Page is essentially a book review, albeit one with many excerpted quotes. As a compilation, it would seem to fail WP:OR. In any case, if it is to remain as a book summary, it would need serious cleanup. Because there doesn't seem to have been a clamor for a synopsis of the book before (especially in view of only one Dave Barry work's having gotten a page), I think the article should be deleted In view of the changes made (and those that editors will surely continue to make), the article surely no longer seems to fit any particular criterion for deletion and surely belongs; consequently, keep. Joe 05:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable book, ranks #1,354,465 on Amazon -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 06:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete ... and the paperback ranks 262,543, but still non-notable. Merge basic info to Dave Barry. Sandstein 06:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Add the title of the book to Dave Barry's bibliography and delete.  (aeropagitica)   06:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The title appears on the bio in the non-fiction section. Joe 07:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Then there is no further need for this article.  (aeropagitica)   07:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable book. J I P  | Talk 14:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep, non-negligible book by conspicuously notable author. Just being a lousy article isn't grounds for deleting the subject, and saying that an article should be deleted because parallel subjects don't have many articles is arguing that Wikipedia should not improve its coverage in areas where existing coverage is inadequate. Monicasdude 16:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentOf course, I expect we'd quibble over where existing coverage is inadequate. Many new pages extend coverage to areas that were not previously covered, but many of those areas are not covered for a reason.  When I noted that only one of Dave Barry's non-fic works has a page, I meant to suggest that a consensus already existed to the effect that the books were non-notable; one may perhaps disagree as to the propriety of my making this inference or to the validity or veracity of the inference.  Notwithstanding that, I adduce the Wikipedia page for Al Franken's wonderful Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations.  The differences between that page and the current one are readily apparent.  It is always my policy to vote "delete" where a page is wholly substandard, even if I believe the topic of the page to merit inclusion here.  General policy would seem to suggest that my voting is inappropriate, but one also observes that, at WP:DGFA, it is suggested that, as one deletes an article, he/she may, believing that the article should exist in a different format, instead list the article at WP:RA.  I am always concerned about votes to keep deficient articles, because those who say that the articles should be cleaned up rather than deleted don't often take part in the cleaning up (I don't fault anyone for this; it's very easy to take on other projects here and to forget what one intended to do).  Joe 20:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Obvious Keep. Notable book by a very notable author. The only one of his non-fiction books with a blue link, which makes me very sad. These need to be filled in, not erased. Grand  master  ka  20:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)  Good point. The subject matter is certainly notable in my opinion, but this should be deleted and started over (I could probably write about a few of his red-linked books...)  Grand  master  ka  23:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Keep rewritten article.  Grand  master  ka  05:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, rewrote article - it's still a stub, but it's NPOV and rewritten with a stub tag, a category, an ext link, etc. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not every book by every notable author needs an article. Catamorphism 03:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Dave barry is very notable. He writes for the New york times.  He has sevral books published.  I own many of his books.  He is very notable.  I hear people talking about him all the time.  There are articles for far less notable books.  Tobyk777 05:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, reasonable book stub for notable work. -Colin Kimbrell 14:43, 22 March 2006 (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.