Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American 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 of the debate was redirect to the author of the book. Normally I'd keep the page history, but not after seeing the author revert back to the copyvio version, thus D & R, with no prejudice toward creating a decent article using original text. — Mar. 6, '06 [08:54] 

The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media
Eehhh... is amazon.com good enough? or powells.com or Library of Congress catalog? Maybe this?--Striver 04:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn book, the article itself is a c&p of the book review on amazon.com and part of User:Striver's WP:POINT. The user himself has several majority delete afd's and has attacked other contributing wikipedians. An Admin is already looking to block the user from editting wikipedia. Also (see Articles for deletion/Lila Rajiva Jersey Devil 01:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless significantly rewritten to show some notability; I'm rather afraid that an Amazon.com book review doesn't quite do it. On a side point, the POV of the user in question has little if any bearing on the validity of the article, and neither does the fact than an admin is looking into blocking the editor.  Such matters are grounds for an RfC or RfA, and have nothing to do with AfD. Scimitar 01:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment certainly and I don't expect anyone to do that. I just wanted to point that out to get others to keep a look out on the massive amounts of pages he keeps making so that none of his WP:POINT edits get through before he is banned/blocked.--Jersey Devil 01:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable writer, made articles for CounterPunch and wrote a book. They are stalking me and AFD every article i creat that is mildly relevant to the 9/11 Truth movement, and now, they have gone so far that they are AFD'ing article that are not even relevant to the 9/11 Truth movement, but solely since i created them. Further, the block threats are bogus, they have nothing that big on me, they just hate my edits. Also, how in the world does this article has anyting to do with WP:POINT? Another bad faith arguement.--Striver 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- nom focuses mostly on article author, and doesn't articulate good cause for deletion. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lila Rajiva. Incidently, Amazon.com is copyrighted, so is the Amazon.com book review also protected? I too want to say that the nominator should not focus on the creating editor, but rather the content of the article. Focus on the user somewhere else, not on AfD. Pepsidrinka 02:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with possible redirect to Lila Rajiva. Content of article is possible copyvio (from amazon.com), thus not to be merged.  I'm not sure what the Notability criterion are for non-fiction books, but WP:BIO would seem to indicate that it is a print run of "5,000 or more", or possibly even a smaller print run with a readership of 5,000 or more (multiple readers through library distribution). Schizombie 03:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be a fairly notable book from a notable author. Article needs cleanup, but hardly a candidate for deletion, independent of any supposed WP:POINT being made. Turnstep 03:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established --rogerd 04:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Verifiability please. Produce a review from a notable source, and I'll vote to keep. Otherwise, Delete. In other words, if you can't find citable material for it other than the source itself, it's not worth keeping. What would be in the article? Wikipedia is not a synopsis clearinghouse. --Mmx1 04:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the LoC catalog, the rest are all booksellers. --Mmx1 05:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

LILA RAJIVA The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media is about "how the perverse logic of torture has infected the language and psychology of the American imperial project," says investigative journalist Jeffrey St. Clair. Elliott Bay Book Company, 624-6600, 6 pm, free. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Listings?oid=25636

--Striver 04:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ''ABU GHRAIB: Author Lila Rajiva will talk about her book The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media, which examines how the torture of Iraqi prisoners was whitewashed by the media. Presented by the Marxist School of Sacramento. 7pm Th 12/15, free. Sierra 2 Center, 2791 24th St., (916) 799-1354.

--Striver 04:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ''The Language of Empire
 * ''George Bush and the folks over at the nightly news have done their best to make sure that we've all forgotten about that bad PR incident known as Abu Ghraib. But author Lila Rajva hasn't forgotten. Her new book, The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media, explores the psychological and political fallout of walking naked Iraqis on a leash and dressing them up like Christmas trees. In Other Words, 3734 SE Hawthorne, 232-6003, 4 pm, free

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=35700&category=22195

--Striver 04:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC) You vote delete since it quotes a review? omg... --Striver 04:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Is it realy a Copyvio to quote the books review? --Striver 04:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If we were to keep this it needs a massive cleanup removing the POV apart from the fact that it is substantially a copyvio. Delete as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 04:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone has removed the copyvio text which most of the article consisted of. It is now a substub. Capitalistroadster 04:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Amazon either owns the copyright on that review, or they paid good money to license it for use in their business. I have seen several of your submissions which contained copyrighted text. In the future, please make sure that all of your submissions are written in your own words. Rhobite 04:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... so where does the line go when quoting? Can i get the link to some Wikipolicy? --Striver 05:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Quoting something is fine, copying it in its entirety (or a substantial amount thereof) isn't. US copyright has allowances for Fair use, other countries have similar setups. MartinRe 09:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as Striver-cruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I went looking for the notability guidelines on nonfiction books, and couldn't find them. Nobody's ever come up with any? --Aaron 07:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Pepsidrinka. Sandstein 09:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Striver. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. Worthwhile topic, just needs a legal article and NPOV editing.Vizjim 15:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, don't need articles on random books. If it becomes notable and there is discussion on it beyond the topic itself, someone can write a real article on it. --Martinp 16:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Lila Rajiva and delete (if her article survives AfD), otherwise delete outright. The book itself is non-notable; it gets only 523 Google hits, the majority of which are mere bookstore links. --Aaron 17:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - book is decidedly NN. Crzrussian 19:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Aaron --Colonel Cow 21:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Pepsidrinka.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and then delete. The book is currently like #340,000 on Amazon, so does not need or deserve its own article. Batmanand | Talk 14:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatent advert, unencyclopedic, no context, & copy vio too. Would reconsider pending complete rewrite. -- Krash (Talk)
 * 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.