Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Complete TurtleTrader: How 23 Novice Investors Became Overnight Millionaires


 * 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   no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The Complete TurtleTrader: How 23 Novice Investors Became Overnight Millionaires

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No actual evidence of notability for the book, which worldcat reports to be found in only 230 libraries. The Bloomberg article is about the person and the trading method, not the book specifically. The book is covered in the article on Covel, which is sufficient. I'm bringing this here instead of just redirecting, so that the decision will stick (and the promotional article history get deleted). I deplore the practice of trying to get multiple promotional articles. It's much safer to stick to one modest article.  DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)   DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is untrue. The Bloomberg article has a 500 word profile of the book. The book also has mentions in Daily Finance and Futures Magazine The Hindu, all of which are notable publications. I'm not sure why worldcat is being mentioned here - that's almost definitely WP:OR. It's common practice to have pages both for authors and for the books they've written, especially if that book is notable (and this one is). MountainMan11 (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Counting the number of holding libraries in WorldCat is not OR. Furthermore, OR applies only to article content, our discussions of whether or not to delete something are generally based on our own investigations into sources.  DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TheSpecialUser TSU 03:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep DGG is right about WP:OR, but (despite generally being a Deletionist) I think this book passes the notability criteria for books. These third-party mentions seem significant, and it passes basic threshold standards ("Books should have at a minimum an ISBN (for books published after 1975), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library.") Dave.Dunford (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2012 (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.