Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Little Green Book


 * 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   delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Little Green Book

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Previous a WP:PROD by another editor on the rationale "Lack of established notability in accordance with WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable and independent sources.". The Prod was removed by an IP. The article remains unreferenced and with no evidence that the book has achieved any notability, so I'm bringing it to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 19:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)   I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That IP was me, sorry I didn't notice I wasn't logged in. I can't really argue that the book has achieved sufficient notability per the policy, so if you're going to delete the article I guess I can't stop you. I would say though that I think that is a shame. The book sold tens of thousands of copies and has been a part of many people's lives, in that sense it is notable. It's a small yet valuable part of contemporary culture. The article itself is also valuable as it serves as a good starting point to learn about notable historical figures. I liked it when Wikipedia's goal was, as I heard it, "all human knowledge". I find it unfortunate that Wikipedia would exclude knowledge when it could just as easily include it. The notability policy smells like a tool for self-important elitists and social exclusionists and I'm disappointed to learn that Wikipedia has a policy like that. Wikipedia is perfectly positioned to cater to the "long tail" of the internet and I don't see why it would have a policy of excluding content that some people would find useful or be interested in. All in all I'm just disappointed in the policy and the process and I feel that where there could have been value created there is a loss in its place. I'd encourage the moderators to leave the article in place regardless of the notability policy on the grounds that the article has value as an entry point into learning more about important historical figures. I just don't see the need to delete it.

Jj5 (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I did a search and there's just no substantial coverage for this book in independent and reliable sources to show that it has notability. As far as amount of copies sold, that actually doesn't guarantee notability and saying that it's sold tens of thousands isn't really that much when you consider that Suze Orman's "You've Earned It, Don't Lose It" has sold about half a million copies since its release and that's probably an outdated number. And even then that's not a guarantee that Orman's book has notability. There are a lot of books that sell hundreds of thousands of copies, yet never get enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. These are books by authors that are considered so notable that they have an article, yet their books just don't meet notability guidelines. A good example of this would be most of the books by Nora Roberts. She's an incredibly influential figure that has made a definite mark upon the literary world, both in her influence over other writers as well as via how prolific she is. Yet most of her books wouldn't be considered notable per these guidelines because the individual works have not been covered in enough reliable sources. We can't add them simply because the author is notable or because her works have sold insanely well and been loved by millions. They have to have independent and reliable sources to show notability. We can't keep an article because WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The reason we have the guidelines in place is because there are a lot of books that are not notable and are unlikely to ever be so. I hate to say it, but this book falls in with the other books that will probably never be notable. I'm sorry that your feelings are being hurt, but this book fails notability guidelines. It's not an elitist thing as much as it is just a "this book has not been covered in any reliable sources at all" thing. On a side note, I think that you might want to read WP:COI. I see that you share the same name as the author, so if you are the same person then you might want to avoid creating and editing things that you are involved with. There's no rule against it, but it's very, very hard to avoid having a conflict of interest in these situations because it's so easy to see notability where there is none as well as to take something personal when it isn't.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: The appropriate guideline for notability is Notability (books). This book doesn't even come close. Sorry. HairyWombat 06:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I cannot find any significant coverage that would establish this book as meeting the inclusion guidelines for Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BK. Looks like WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Apart from the apparent lack of notability, the way the article is laid out, with exaggerated reference to the book's contents, suggests promotional bias.--Zananiri (talk) 10:04, 29 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.