Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Invisible Edge


 * 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. Meets NBOOK, as shown by. (non-admin closure)  J 947  01:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The Invisible Edge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable book. The only sources are reviews on IP Watchdog (a blog); in Automation World (an industry-specific publication); and a passing mention in an otherwise unrelated press release.

This book and its authors Mark Blaxill and Ralph Eckardt have a history of using Wikipedia for promotional purposes; each of their articles, and the article on the book, have been deleted multiple times: two speedies (log) for the book; a speedie (log) and one AFD (here) for Blaxill; and two AFDs (here and again after re-creation here) for Eckardt.

This re-creation a week ago seems to be the latest attempt at WikiPromotion. The article was created by WP:SPA editor, whose sole contribution has been to create this article. It's not clear to me whether this editor is the same individual as, who was responsible for the prior now-deleted articles, or merely their successor. TJRC (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I could find one good review in Strategy+Business. While Harvard Business School's review is trivial and not independent, the review in ipwatchdog.com is quite acceptable. IPwatchdog.com is a hall of fame inductee in the American Bar Association's top 100 blogs, so can't be discredited. These two reviews allow the book to qualify under WP:NBOOK, which requires two reviews only for a book to be considered notable. Additionally, the book is a suggested reading in courses at Stanford University, Aston University, Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship etc. This too makes the book qualify under WP:NBOOK, under the university reading criterion. Also, this book is cited multiple times by researchers. Lourdes  14:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, it has also been reviewed by Financial Executive  Coolabahapple (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  00:27, 18 March 2017 (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.