Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ten Letters to Obama


 * 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. &mdash;Cryptic 05:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ten Letters to Obama

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. For me, "Ten Letters to Obama" gets 38 real Google hits and they are almost without exception just links to buy it on various local versions of Amazon, etc. The Wikipedia page currently says it is published by "IntelliPress", but the Amazon link here says it was published by CreateSpace, which is a self-publishing company associated with Amazon. The book is not in OpenLibrary or even WorldCat. The Wikipedia article is likely just a vanity page. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Same reasoning as above. Also, it's extremely politically partisan and they appear to have started a 'help me translate this for free' Wikipedia marketing campaign. Subtle abuse of the platform for these ends must be discouraged. prat (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It vanished from the page, so here's a link to the post in question. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  16:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, self-promotional. Delete it.--DThomsen8 (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I couldn't find anything via a search and I'm doubtful that any of the sources on the page would count as a reliable source since they're both kind of dodgy and read like they're essentially PR that was handed to the paper. Case in point: one of the papers (Guyana Chronicle) writesthat the book is "being considered for addition to the New York Times Best Seller List". While the NYT is very closed mouthed about what exact level of purchases makes something show up on their lists, you can't "be considered" for the list. You either sell enough to land yourself on the list or you don't. The list is all about sales numbers when you get down to it so if something sold well enough to warrant being on the NYT list then there would be at least some sources out there from a reliable source. It's not a guarantee that a book will pass GNG, but there are usually at least 1-2 sources from mainstream papers. This book doesn't have that and the sources on the article really don't seem all that reliable, so this is a delete on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd probably recommend blocking the editor in question until he can show that he understands Wikipedia policy. He's been editing since 2013 and some of his prior edits show that he does have a working knowledge of Wikipedia's policy, which he doesn't seem to be applying to this article. I'm also concerned about Webwatchergy's accusations of vandalism over the AfD noms, sockpuppetry, and his translation campaign that borders on spam. I'm a little uneasy recommending this but the promotional-ness of the article and his accusations (which primarily seem like it's retribution against Bueller 007 for nominating the articles for deletion) kind of make me think that this guy would benefit from stepping back and reading over the policies a little more. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article focuses on an important subject matter that is of public interest.

50 Shades of Gray was a self-published book that tells a story that is seemingly of public interest.

Assuming that the article is promotional without a single shred of proof is making a claim in bad faith.

Asking other editors to aid in the translation of a page into other languages is not spam. Are you suggesting that the editors should have been asked to be hired for compensation? Please.

Can’t a book have multiple ISBN’s and multiple territorial publishers?

Are we saying that a book with a createspace ISBN is not a book?

As I had mentioned in an earlier post pertaining to the author, the person who have selected this book for removal have also selected a large chunk of authors of a certain ethnicity for removal from Wikipedia.

As the creator of this article, I was never notified that it was selected for deletion, neither did the selector sought to invite additional contributions (if any) before using deletion as a last resort.

I can only assume that the book was selected because of the ethnic background of the person who wrote it.

Another editor on here also suggest that the book is partisan probably because its primary focus was on the plight of the people in the Middle East, and which does not seems to support Western interest.

Are we saying that any book that does not lean towards Western interest should be removed from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwatchergy (talk • contribs) 10:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Webwatchergy (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fifty Shades of Gray also sold more than seven copies, was reviewed by numerous major media outlets, was picked up by a famous international publishing house, was turned into a motion picture, and gets more than 40 real Google hits. Let me just check how many of those are true about Ten Letters to Obama. Oh, wait.  None.  The end.  Bueller 007 (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable publication. I'd also like to hint at this request directed to me by Webwatchergy. What I first thought to be a good faith request for translation appears now like soapboxing to me. De728631 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete (Special:diff/643066382 & Special:diff/643069903) Unacceptable.-- AldNon Ucallin?☎ 19:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008  ( talk ) 12:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. @ Bueller 007, - Can additional references from additional reputable news sources about this book in other languages (such as Arabic and including those that are presumably offline) be included?

Outside of that, there are many books on Wikipedia’s that have not won any award, and have two or three trivial coverage, but have been allowed to stay.

I am of the view that this book have received and is still receiving global coverage, as I had discovered after a whole week of trying to seek information sources from even the author’s agent himself. However, most of the sources are ironically from newspapers in other languages and several Arabic inflight magazines and middle eastern government (propaganda?) literature, all of which intensely refers to the book. I am now surmising that this book would have had a more extensive list of references, probably if the article was original entered into Wikipedia in Arabic.

To add insult to injury, some of the references (especially those from Morocco etc) are probably not accessible online. I don’t know for sure because my translation tools sort of make this awkward and complicated.

But all of that aside, I will reiterate that the references in this article are adequate, and the book in itself has coverage, though in a different geographic zone.

With regard to the best seller list question, my research has indicated that to be discussed for inclusion in the New York Times, a book only needs to have some high sales within a given week at any one or more of more than 4,000 retail sources from which the assessors gathers their information. In any case, being considered for inclusion is trivial, but significant in its own right. With regard to the greater vote to delete; I had explained in a related article that; - Wikipedia has made it clear that majority vote numbers does not necessarily translate to mean that an article should be deleted, especially when the voters fail to provide any significant, justifiable or detailed reason as to why the article ought to be deleted. At best, most the delete votes are just a single line with two or three words that provided no proper explanation. This usually makes the vote seems as if a voter is simply being supportive of the nominator, especially if there is a pattern of the same group of people inter-voting within each other’s nominations or are strangely voting throughout Wikipedia in unison.

My final take on this is that this article ought to be included Wikipedia, which allows for inclusion of content without the editor having to adhere to strict guidelines if the material is of significant public interest with supporting references. Not because a book may be accepted as popular or well received in a poor country, it should not be included because it is not well received in a developed Western country. With fairness to all of the Wikipedia users across the globe, and with fairness to Wikipedia’s policies itself, we ought consider the inclusion of this book since it has satisfied at least the most minimal requirement for inclusion.

At worst, the book should instead be allowed to remain with an invitation for further edits and sourcing of additional references.

Deleting the article may not be the best course of action.

Nonetheless, I will respectfully support whatever position the Administrator’s at Wikipedia may take on this without any grudge.

Again, I will still thank all those who have contributed to this talk, and hope that even they too can review the significance of this book. Webwatchergy (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The sales are counted together, but the thing about the NYT is that there is no "consideration". A book either sells well enough to satisfy the algorithms that the NYT uses to compile its list or it doesn't. There's no considering because considering gives off the impression that the list is chosen akin to how people choose to give out an award. Granted the NYT isn't completely transparent about how they tabulate sales results, but they don't pick and choose who gets on to the list based upon a larger list. Not only that, but if the book was going to sell enough to warrant landing on the NYT list then odds are extremely high that it'd be listed on the USA Today bestseller list, which is more liberal in what it includes (meaning that they count pure sales numbers and it's easier to get on this list). That the book is not on the USA Today site at all is pretty telling as far as sales rankings go, as it's impossible that a book selling as many as you are claiming would gain no attention from the NYT and USA Today bestseller lists. I'm actually relatively familiar with the lists so I know that in order to get onto just one of the specific lists (not the main fiction and non-fiction lists) you have to sell at least 15,000 copies in a one week period per some accounts. To get onto the main lists it's even higher than that. Now while the bestseller lists aren't a guarantee of notability (a common misconception when it comes to book articles), being on the lists does make it more likely that there will be coverage in reliable sources. It's just kind of odd that a book would reportedly sell well enough to potentially land on the list (especially when the book is in the 2 million ranks on Amazon, meaning it isn't selling well) yet it has failed to gain any coverage in sources that would be considered reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. There isn't even any real blog chatter about this book and the book blogging world loves to talk about indie and self-published books that manage to get onto the bestseller lists. That gives me the impression that the claim about being considered for the list is just a marketing gimmick done by someone who doesn't really know how the NYT list works. However that's all sort of a moot point since being on the list isn't considered to be something that would give notability per Wikipedia's guidelines (not even achieving the #1 spot for the main lists) and since the book hasn't made it onto the lists, arguing that the author clearly misunderstands how the list works is a little overkill I suppose. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Tokyogirl79, I have further research this based upon your comment; and would want to agree with you.

Consideration for adding to a best seller list indeed sounds a little more like the article had made an overstatement. I do not want to go all out and say that the journalist may have overstepped a logic in this case. However, I don't see such a claim finding its way into Wikipedia. That aside, I have decided to limit my edits to this article and leave it to the discretion of a wider scope of editors to determine whether it is worth inclusion, expansion, edits, or a stay.

I humbly thinks that it may nonetheless require additional input and possibly a further review. But overall, my earlier arguments on its reasons to stay seems acceptable(?). But then again, that is just my opinion.

Thanks for your comment in any case. Webwatchergy (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.