Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia - A New Community of Practice?


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia - A New Community of Practice?

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Procedural nomination. Article was prodded by but  objected to deletion on article talk page and on NawlinWiki's user talk, therefore making deletion not uncontroversial. Original deletion rationale was "no sources to indicate that this book is notable."

I am neutral. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 23:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Copy of initial response to the request for deletion below. I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this, and it's not like I put a lot of work into it or anything, but I obviously would prefer the article was not deleted, hence against  — M3TA  (  info  ) @  15:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "There are currently no external sources to indicate notability due to the fact that the book was published in September 2009. I have a copy in front of me, and it is an academic treatment of the Wikipedia community, particularly as a Community of Practice, and as such I thought it would be relevant to include in the category of 'books about wikipedia'. I was in the process of writing a bit more as a description of the book and have now filled out the article slightly, including a few references. Since it's an academic book, the Notability_(books) guidelines suggest that it need only be based on 'how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines' and this appears to be the only serious book on Wikipedia from a historical sociological perspective (rather than, for example, a computer science perspective). I would also point out that the author is speaking at an academic conference on wikipedia in March this year. The article is also marked as a 'stub' so that it can be expanded if and when it is cited or reviewed in future."


 * Also, see Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Review_desk where a review of this book (incorrectly titled 'Wikipedia: From Print to Text to Participation', but still by Daniel O'Sullivan) is requested, and User:Thespian has responded. I would also be happy to write a proper review.


 * Delete - non-notable; "keep" argument is the tired old WP:UPANDCOMING, a clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Ironically, the rules of Wikipedia go against having an article about this book that is about Wikipedia. Absent some showing of notability or notice within the publishing world, it doesn't qualify for its own page.  Somehow, at $79.95 a copy, I don't think it's going to be on anyone's bestseller list. Mandsford (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no significant coverage that i can find, and author doesnt appear to pass WP notability either. appears to be a nonnotable academic work with little or no influence outside of academia.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as well ;) Now I think understand the notability guidelines better, although I'm still learning about wikipedia policies...  — M3TA  (  info  ) @  22:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as of G11. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  00:19, 9 February 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.