Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Love Addicts


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Love Addicts

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A PROD tag was removed without addressing the lack of reliable sources and, apparently, notability. From the similarity in names it is likely that the author and publisher are one, and thus self-publishing which attracts no notability. No evidence that anyone thinks this book is notable and I could find none. Accounting4Taste: talk 23:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This article has been earmarked by Wikipedia for deletion on the basis of notability. However, this writer would implore the editors of the proposed deletion to take into account the ethics of an online encyclopedia's responsibility to its users to gather and record as much valid information about the world at large as is humanly practical, and to thoroughly explore the potential for recording the achievements of small press and independent media that has elected not to be distributed through mainstream channels.

Certainly, we all enjoy using Wikipedia as a portal to a more thorough understanding of the world around us, but the tradeoff is if we conform to the patterns of censorship, we only succeed in propagating the status quo, by effectively leveraging out the softer voices of our digital society. As our digital universe continues its pattern of expansive growth, we have an opportunity and a responsibility to allow open accessibility to new ideas and information, particularly as a matter of record. Just because an idea, book, band, scientific hypothesis, or technology, has not yet gained significant notoriety or is branded as unpopular, it is the argument of this writer that this does not preclude a significant enough reason to censor the recording of its existence.

I believe it is also worth pointing out, that during its inception, the reputation of Wikipedia itself was laid suspect by harsh critics who pointed out flaws in its design and attempted to label it as untrustworthy. I would argue that at least what some of these critics ultimately wanted to accomplish was censor the sweeping changes of how people come to process information, and abolish the threats Wikipedia presented to the conglomerates and so-called established recorders of reference, which at the time possessed firm stranglehold monopolies on information gathering. It took years before college professors came to accept Wikipedia as a credible reference. Today, through its community of devoted users as well as public trust, Wikipedia has established itself not only as a viable source of reference, but also as an authority in research and academia.

At the very least, I please ask, with the most humblest of intentions, that a very similar opportunity be given to this article, this record, and this book, the chance to prove itself worthy of recognition, and the opportunity to attain the standard of notability over time. If you find the points of my argument to be invalid, or choose to go through with the article's deletion process, I please ask, with great humility, the administrators to consider this article for 'incubation', or to be entered into record as a 'sandbox' page.--Bernardrco (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are some other voices that have also weighed in on what constitutes 'notability': —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardrco (talk • contribs) 23:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As Nicholson Baker put it, "There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia: nobody will ever sort it out."[8]

Timothy Noah wrote several articles in 2007 in Slate about the threatened deletion of his entry on grounds of his insufficient notability. He concluded that "Wikipedia's notability policy resembles U.S. immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement."[9] David Segal commented in the Washington Post that "Wiki-worthiness has quietly become a new digital divide, separating those who think they are notable from those granted the imprimatur of notability by a horde of anonymous geeks."[11]

Another criticism is that "Wikipedia sees itself as a publication that relies on reputation that has already been produced ex ante: especially when it is based on consensual mass media judgment or—in the case of lesser known individuals—on different smaller, but mutually independent sources. Of course, this policy does not acknowledge that a Wikipedia entry may itself become a factor in reputation building: especially when the information that this entry exists is propagated by journalists and other potent 'multiplicators'".[12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardrco (talk • contribs) 23:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, all I hear is "blah blah blah tl;dr blah blah blah tl;dr." You wanna rephrase this more succinctly? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete i checked google, and google books: no sources beyond us, facebook, myspace, and author/publisher website. one search turned up, unsurprisingly, another author credit for the book: bernard co. pure self promotion, any repeat of this behavior and above editor needs to be warned about their behavior. This is absolutely, positively, not notable at this time, and a waste of time to discuss beyond getting enough editors to review it impartially and state their views.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unable to find reliable sources establishing notability.  Also appears to be a conflict of interest.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 03:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fails notability criteria. Dlabtot (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep With much respect to the previous editors' dedication to the strict letter of the law with regards to the standards of quality and excellence Wikipedia is reputed for, I must respectfully and vehemently disagree. As Mercurywoodrose has, by her own admonition, already pointed out, The Love Addicts by Jack B. Savage is easily found through the Google Search Engine, and already possesses a substantial following on Myspace and Facebook, ergo disproving Ms. Mercurywoodrose's proposed falling short of and meeting the notability requirement! Obliviously!

In response to Mr. Narthring's unfounded criticisms regarding a conflict of interest between myself and this article, I would like to offer the editors of Wikipedia, Mr. Jimmy Wales, and the Wikipedia community at large a FREE PROMOTIONAL copy of The Love Addicts by Jack B. Savage, if nothing else, for the simple sake of putting to rest these unsubstantiated rumors of bias hurled against yours truly. If you are interested in said FREE copy, please respond to bernard@savageinnovationpublishing.com. Then, for all our sakes, we can finally put to rest said criticisms, and come to a firm consensus on the veracity and validity of said article.

Look forward to hearing from you!--Bernardrco (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The aim of the Wikipedia is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. An editor trying to promote his or her product through an article is the very definition of conflict of interest and violates an article's neutral point of view.  No hard feelings, but this isn't the place for advertising.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 15:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the notability requirement is not satisfied by MySpace and Facebook pages - they are not reliable sources. Narthring (talk  • contribs) 15:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to thank all the editors who contributed to this discussion. Although I believe some contributed more valid criticism than others, certainly all are welcome to share their thoughts, a founding principle of the Wikipedia tradition and culture.
 * Delete Very obvious COI, spam, not notable per WP:N. Why is this not a G11? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy per 10lb's latest !vote.RussianReversal (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -The Bard

In response, and to protect the freedoms of all future article writers and their creations, I believe there is an inherent danger when the validity and legitimacy of Independent media is measured using mainstream applications, such as Amazon.com and GoogleBooks. I would liken using these as reliable gauges for notability to using a pair of binoculars to map out all known star systems in the Universe. To put it mildly, these websites as outlets for literature are extremely limited in scope, and I would also point out, have their own agendas 'to sell', which also presents a Conflict of Interest in regards to the actual validity of examined literature.

In regards to the issue of Conflict of Interest, I plead 'Nolo Contendere', or 'No Contest'. Yes, I Bernard R. Co did knowingly write said article although I am also the President of Savage Innovation Publishing, the Independent media outlet the author elected to publish his novel through. However, I did attempt to write this article with as objective a perspective as I was capable, not solely to promote the book, but primarily because I believe it IS worthy of being recorded for future reference, and for the reference of its readers. I do not believe any of the language I used was offensive or demeaning, or followed any established advertising model. The article as it stands now is completely composed of factual information, not narrated by opinionated statements. I understand one of the purposes of the standard of notability is to keep out rampant advertising, but I don't believe the language of this article falls into the category of commercialism.

I believe it also worth pointing out that there exists a very real-world bias and stigma against Independent Media, which mainstream culture continually propagates by making it difficult for IM to find affordable exposure and coverage. At one point, being a 'runaway slave' in the Southern American colonies during the first half of the 19th century was considered a mental illness(Drapetomania) by the mainstream culture of that society. But what wasn't recorded at that time were the opinions and thoughts of the slaves themselves, or their world view. The point being, their voices were also censored and considered unworthy of note, due to a stigmatized system of values most today would deem as barbaric, immoral, and savage. Please do not allow contemporary voices to be censored in similar ways, solely because they are unpopular or unpublished by the mainstream. The lessons of History should have taught us better.

Once again, thank you all for your time and contributions. I would like to very politely ask that if you do decide to delete this article, please consider it for incubation or to be transferred into a Sandbox article until such a time it is deemed fit to meet the standards you do not believe it to currently. I hope I didn't offend anyone, as I try my best to explore and navigate my way through the Wikipedia Universe. Thanks again.Bernardrco (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardrco (talk • contribs) 03:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No independent coverage. Not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2010 (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.