Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journalistic Fraud (2003 book)


 * 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. Has already appeared to be userfied. Wizardman 14:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Journalistic Fraud (2003 book)

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

Unreferenced article of a book that clearly fails WP:BK, having no reviews or independent coverage. Amazon.com reviews do not count...


 * Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 *  Keep Move to Creator's Userspace I found a review http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0785261044.asp that may be acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnabdas (talk • contribs)
 * Bookreporter.com fails both WP:RS and WP:BK itself. It is not published, and the "reviews" are no more than member-submitted reviews.  We need multiple non-trivial treatments of the subject in published works. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right on that, I didn't realize it was just people putting up stuff like on Amazon. Media Matters has criticized the book., if that counts? Arnabdas (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that counts as a review, or as multiple treatments. So are you striking your keep then?  ;-)  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I am. You're right on with the policies and the MM link is not a review. I am going to suggest this be moved into the creators userspace since he obviously worked hard on it. Let him keep it around and should policies change later, or he find reviews on it, we can move it back at that time. I do think that the review policy wikipedia has gives a disadvantage to conservative books simply because most review publicans push neo-liberal ideology and therefore will not review any book critical of it...despite the book's success in sales. However, it's policy now thus we need to follow it according to how it is now. I will send the author a personal message requesting he move this to his userspace. Let's give him a week to move it before it gets deleted. As someone whose own work has been deleted after painstaking efforts to make it good, I sympathize with the guy. When my own work was deleted it made me discouraged in posting to wikipedia and we as editors definitely do not want to contribute to that. Arnabdas (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If the creator would like to preserve a copy off-site we can certainly make his work available to him, but I don't think this book is going to become notable anytime soon, and as such we really don't use userspace to host articles that should otherwise be deleted. Either way, good discussion.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:37, 2 April 2008 (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.