Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dataclysm


 * 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) DanCherek (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Dataclysm

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

It is not immediately evident that this book has had much lasting impact on the world (beyond the odd review following its release) that might make it worthy of an encyclopedic entry. Between the lack of sourcing, the clear absence of editors interested in taking this further and the rigors of WP:NOTNEWS, it does not really seem worth retaining this material. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The book review notes: "I had a few other quibbles like that. But the reason I had quibbles is that Rudder’s book offers you something to quibble with. Most data-hyping books are vapor and slogans. This one has the real stuff: actual data and actual analysis taking place on the page."  The book review notes: "“Dataclysm” may make an excellent case for the necessity of user data in social-science research, but it does little to justify experimentation on users. Interestingly, many questions addressed in the book didn’t require such experimentation to answer. The answers were already in the data; for better or worse, it was just a matter of looking."  The book review notes: "Rudder is sensitive to these pitfalls, even though he could have easily become another tech evangelist. His book delivers both insider access and a savvy critique of the very machinery he is employed by. Since he's been in the data mines and has risen above them, Rudder becomes a singular and trustworthy guide."  The book review notes: "The mammoth scope of Rudder’s work is impressive. It is most interesting to place yourself in the conclusions that the numbers show you. It is also at times a little frightening."  The book review notes, "It’s only fair to note that Dataclysm requires an attentive reader who has a commitment to the subject matter. The payoff is worth the effort."  The book review notes: "Given the amount of information being gathered about us, we need something that takes the ethical questions of 2014 more seriously, or at least helps us better understand the industries from which these numbers come — not a book filled with data about data collection heaped upon an existing mountain of data, all of it telling us what we sort of already knew." <li> This is a 136-word book review. The book review notes: "Christian Rudder's Dataclysm: Who We Are (When We Think No One's Looking) is a smart and funny meander through information that the OkCupid cofounder has collected from his dating site, as well as from Twitter, Facebook, Craigslist, and other places where people express their innermost thoughts and desires."</li> <li> This is a 216-word book review. The book review notes: "Rudder, cofounder of dating site OKCupid, offers an irreverent, thought-provoking popularization of data science, specifically online user data and what it tells us about attraction, division, and identity."</li> <li> This is a 328-word book review. The book review notes: "Demographers, entrepreneurs, students of history and sociology, and ordinary citizens alike will find plenty of provocations and, yes, much data in Rudder's well-argued, revealing pages."</li> <li> This is a 228-word book review. The book review notes: "Rudder (cofounder and president, OKCupid.com) here presents an extensive analysis of the online personal data collected by his site".</li> <li> This a four-sentence book review. The book review notes: "OkCupid co-founder Rudder drills down into that last category via charts, graphs and intriguing analyses of human behavior gleaned from the wealth of social data now available."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dataclysm to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Withdrawn by nominator Page issues notwithstanding, @Cunard found some compelling WP and WSJ pieces. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.