Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Paradox of Excellence


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The Paradox of Excellence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability per WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - major publisher. Book by a Harvard professor. Reviewed in popular and reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Reuters piece isn't a reivew; its an adaptation of a tip republished as click fodder. The Economist article refers to a paper, not the book. It's an ancillary reference, ot about the book itself, and certainly isn't a review. Goodreads is self-published and not a reliable source. These aren't the non-trivial sources that WP:NBOOK demands. -- Mikeblas (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just posting to say "ditto". Goodreads is pretty much a social media site where people can review, akin to Facebook. None of the reviews can be used to show notability because anyone can sign up and review something without any editorial oversight. As far as the other links go, Reuters, Economist, and Harvard don't seem to actually be talking about this specific book. It looks like, as far as I can tell, these articles are about the people who originated the term "Paradox of Excellence". Notability is not inherited by the authors of this specific book writing about something possibly notable. (WP:NOTINHERITED) You, I, or even Jimbo himself could write a book about Albert Einstein's bunny slippers, but us writing about a notable subject does not make the book automatically pass notability guidelines. It just means that we wrote a book about something notable, which might make it more likely that it'd get coverage. We can't use any of these links to show notability. We need sources about the specific book written by David Mosby and Michael Weissman, not about the concept that two Harvard professionals came up with. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and re-make the entry to be about the concept itself rather than this book. The thing here to remember is that while this book does cover the concept, the authors for this specific book did not come up with it. I can find sources for the concept, but not this particular book. I found two articles, but they're not enough to show notability for this specific book on the concept. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Or at least as far as I can tell, neither of the authors came up with this term. I can find some references for the term, but they don't explicitly state who came up with the idea. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm... maybe not for the term. I can see where it's used, but it's kind of used so generally that it's hard to really nail down reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree that that some of the above sources don't actually refer to the book.  Via highbeam, this source:  does, but it's a one-sentence reference, which does not to my mind rise to signficant coverage.  --j⚛e deckertalk 21:50, 12 April 2014 (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.