Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 85 Ways to Tie a Tie


 * 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The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn and no 'delete' !votes. --ais523 13:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The 85 Ways to Tie a Tie
This seems a bit suspicious; the interwikis are fake (at least the German one), it reads like an advert, and parts may be copyvio (although I'm not sure about that one). It also seems to be trying to promote the authors. --ais523 12:11, 13 September 2006 (UT C)
 * Delete per nom. Both seem to have been created and maintained by several users who seem to solely edit pages linked to the Author. If not a one-man vanity crusade, then extremely fishy at least. Onebravemonkey 12:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * not to delete, we got rid of those interwikis. this book is a bestseller with an unique history being based on scientific papers published in nature and physik A. the article is of importance for everyone interested in fashion and culture. Bkenner 12:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's hardly unique. There are many books that were written to popularize scientific research. Uncle G 12:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether the interwiki links are correct or not, the book itself is genuine. I know this because I have it right here by the keyboard as I type this.  &#9786;  ISBN 1841155683.  As such, I can check the copyright violation.  Yes, the entire "Preface" section of this article is copied word-for-word from the book. The majority of the article comprises a sample from the book and several quoted book reviews, written in the first person.  This isn't an encyclopaedia article on a book.  It's what one would expect to see at Amazon.  There's probably an encyclopaedia article to write on the various ways to tie a tie.  But that would be about the subject, not about the book on the subject.  It would also grow, summary style, out of necktie. Uncle G 12:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The book passes WP:BK for at least having multiple non-trivial reviews by third parties, including "Scientific American" magazine. True, Google gives me only 850 or so general hits, which boils down to only 257 distinct hits, but there are several reviews in this lot beyond the dozens of book sales.  There are also several listings of articles based on the book, which is apparently a derivative of knot theory, which in turn also meets WP:BK.  Downsides are the article does appear to be an ad, and it lacks sources and verification in the article itself.  The real problem I'm having however is in the nomination, which doesn't actually state grounds for deletion.  "Seems a bit suspicious"?  Reads "like" an advert.  "May" be copyvio.  One fake Interwiki?  I have no idea how to check the Interwiki, that's my bad, but none of the politely-worded commentary shows any failure of WP policy and guidelines.  Tychocat 12:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what seems to have happened is that the article was created, but then an anon went and dumped a load of spurious categories and interwikis on it, making it look a bit worse. I'll change my !vote. --ais523 13:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, sorry for the weaselly nom. It was one of those cases when I thought that community input was needed to help sort out or delete the article, but couldn't quite put my finger on what was wrong. --ais523 13:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (nominator's !vote changed) Neutral per comments above. Requires cleanup and NPOVing. --ais523 13:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, i agree. It's still slightly aquatic on the nose, but the points raised above are valid. Onebravemonkey 13:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't create this page, but I am one of the authors of the book. It is true that too much material from external sources was added to this page.  I have removed this.  As an author I am not going to judge if this belongs on Wikipedia, but seeing as it is here I have taken the liberty to prune away excessive material to allow the article to grow more organically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas Fink (talk • contribs) 14:32, 13 September 2006  (UTC)
 * (!vote changed again) Keep per cleanup. Another triumph for AfD! --ais523 13:36, 13 September 2006 (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.