Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inside Yahoo! Reinvention and the Road Ahead


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Inside Yahoo! Reinvention and the Road Ahead

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence that this book is notable; and very little of any encyclopaedic value in the article. This search for reviews shows 32 hits almost none of which have any relevance - reader reviews, passing mentions etc. I can't find a single review that meets WP criteria at Notability_(books). andy (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per, , , and . Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Refs #2 and #4 are identical (same url)and come from a subscription-only presswire service - fails WP:RS. #1 and #3 are inaccessible without a subscription. andy (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because something is available from a subscription service and not freely available online doesn't mean it isn't a reliable source. Two of the original articles were in the Database and Network Journal, InTheBlack magazine.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 18:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless that's still only two references rather than the four that were proposed. andy (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

I have rewritten the page to meet standards. Please look at it. Also, you must have messed up the search because I found many references and reviews for it.

Willy625 (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Then let's see these reviews then, please. The search I gave in my nomination looks for the book title and the word "review", while excluding trivial sources such as blogs - in what way is that messed up? I can't find anything that meets the notability criteria of "multiple, non-trivial" works. Narthring  Joe Chill has proposed four reviews, but two of them are identical and trivial and I can't access the other two. So at best there are two decent reviews - hardly notability. I notice that the publisher itself only quotes from two reviews - one of which is from the Freepint newsletter and the other is one of the ones already mentioned by Narthring  Joe Chill. andy (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW the article as it now stands is pretty much identical with the publisher's blurb. If it survives this AfD it will need rewriting. andy (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I never proposed any reviews, Joe Chill did. I said that because something is available on a subscription service online and not freely accessible doesn't mean it isn't a reliable source.  I think this is especially true when the source is also available in printed form, as two of the sources are.  I have no idea if the two sources are or are not reliable and nontrivial - just that they are not automatically nonreliable.  If they are reliable and nontrivial then I believe the two articles could demonstrate notability.  That doesn't mean this Wikipedia article should be kept just because there may be two articles out there that demonstrate notability.  The burden of proof still lies with whoever wants to keep the article.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 19:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad - I copied and pasted the wrong username when editing. andy (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:NB and WP:GNG. Claritas § 21:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the criteria at Notability_(books). Me-123567-Me (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I still haven't seen anything that establishes notability.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 13:34, 2 June 2010 (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.