Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign


 * 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 as advertising and copyright violation. Whether or not an article on this subject is warranted, this content is a straight word-for-word copy and paste of the publisher's advertising blurb for this book, which can be found here. The creator of this article has copied several advertisements straight from Telos Press' blurbs into Wikipedia, and this is but one of several problematic articles that were listed at AFD and Proposed Deletion. Not only is this advertising, moreover, it is a copyright violation of advertising. Notice that the advertising blurb is marked "Copyright © 1968–2009 Telos Press Publishing". Chrajohn, you are welcome to write a proper, sourced, written-in-your-own-words, article on this subject if you determine that that is possible. Speedy deletion doesn't preclude that. However, a copyright violation and an advertisement is not a stub to start from. Uncle G (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I have read this stub three times and I still have no idea what the book is supposed to be about. No evidence that the book is notable. &mdash; RHaworth 19:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of course we have no idea what the book is supposed to be about; it's French postmodernism, after all.  But the author is notable, and the book gets 17,800 ghits (for the entire English title in quotes).  ReverendWayne (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It's notable and there are several RS which mention this book. I'd also consider merging it into the article on Jean Baudrillard. Majoreditor (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * merge Every academic book except the utter flo[s will have several sources that mention it; and there will be sources that routinely cite all Baudrillard's book. In the absence of any evidence that it is particularly notable in the oeuvre, it should be merged.  DGG ( talk ) 14:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I dePRODed this. I meant to work more on the article, but life's been conspiring against me the last few days. I don't think notability is a problem here; there are 1460 Google Scholar and 702 Google Books results, and many of those are significantly more than passing citations.  My question is whether this book can support its own article separate from the rest of Baudrillard's work; many of the references treat it together with either The Mirror of Production or his "early work" in general.  On the other hand, the sources I skimmed seemed to indicate that this was an influential attempt to combine Marxism and semiotics and a significant transition between Baudrillard's early and latter thought.  I found several in-depth, multi-page discussions  of this book either on its own or in contrast to Baudrillard's other work.  A New Statesman article listed this book as one of three of his more notable works.--Chris Johnson (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article could use some work, but this is a notable book by a very notable author. Dlduncan2 (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2009 (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.