Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Big Book of Social Media


 * 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   keep. postdlf (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Big Book of Social Media

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BKCRIT, little to no outside coverage of the book. Seattle (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  Thornton, Leslie-Jean. "Book Review: The Big Book of Social Media: Case Studies, Stories, Perspectives and Future Media." Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 67, no. 2 (2012): 185-188 Links to the review: http://jmc.sagepub.com/content/67/2/185.citation and http://www.academia.edu/4622065/Book_Review_The_Big_Book_of_Social_Media_Case_Studies_Stories_Perspectives_and_Future_Media. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Big Book of Social Media to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Business Insider article was taken verbatim from smallbiztrends.com. Its author, Pierre DeBois, hasn't left a review of less than "4 stars" for his articles that I've checked. It reads as sponsored content and thus not an indicator of notability. Seattle (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That Pierre DeBois hasn't left a review of less than "4 stars" for the sample of articles you checked does not indicate that this is sponsored content. Perhaps he only reviews books he enjoys, or perhaps he doesn't like to harshly criticize others' work. http://smallbiztrends.com/aboutWebCite says: "Ethics Statement Small Business Trends is committed to reporting fairly. Our writers and editors may not write about people or entities with which they have financial interests, without disclosure. Our coverage is not influenced by advertisers. Advertising is handled by our advertising department and is kept separate from the editorial department.  Advertising and Sponsored Content is clearly identified as such.  Editorial review policy:  We do not accept payment for reviewing books or products, or pointing them out as resources. Our book reviewers may, however, receive review copies of books (a customary practice in the publishing industry). For software product reviews, our reviewers typically use free accounts, demo accounts or temporary review accounts. For hardware reviews, we typically use temporary product loans provided for media review purposes, or a product previously owned by the reviewer." There is no evidence that Small Business Trends publishes sponsored content. Cunard (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Has had significant coverage from 3rd party independent sources to meet WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you define "significant coverage" outside of the sources already listed above? Two sources, one of which appears to be sponsored, don't constitute significance. Seattle (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Both sources provide substantial coverage of the subject. Neither are sponsored sources. Cunard (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2015 (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.