Jump to content

Project:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/60 Days to LinkedIn Mastery

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to File:Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Not notable Peterdownunder (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

60 Days to LinkedIn Mastery[change]

60 Days to LinkedIn Mastery (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No significant coverage on reliable sources. Not a notable book. The article is promotional. BRP ever 05:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change]

  • File:Symbol delete vote.svg Delete No significant coverage on reliable sources.--5.123.99.28 (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Symbol delete vote.svg Delete yet another instance of undisclosed paid-for spam by BolsaOObsequios (see w:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of BolsaOObsequios). MER-C (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep or rather Speedy keep because it made it to the bestselling list of both USA Today[1] and the Wall Street Journal's list[2]. This information is not included in the article so please mention it. Thank you. 51.9.251.25 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Per IP address above. Best sellers are usually notable. Blissyu2 (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • File:Symbol comment vote.svg Comment: i think we should let the article stay, alot of supporters; and as the ip mentioned one of the best selling list. [1]--🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      Not sure if #87 of the week in USA today can be considered of that significance. The article as it is, is too promotional to be kept. BRP ever 12:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      If the article is promotional then still it is salvageable. Get rid of any promotional material and keep the article. Deletion is not always helpful, contributions will help grow this project particularly for this book which has been a bestseller among thousands of books published everyday. 92.12.83.59 (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      Not salvageable if there is nothing more interesting/important than " #87 of the week in USA today" (newspaper/website). 89.8.145.27 (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      Please read the NBOOKS first. Being ranked #87 of the week in a source like USA today is enough for notability. In addition, it has been on the list of WSJ best selling as well. 92.12.83.59 (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      Not enough for getting an article in encyclopedia Wikipedia! 89.8.145.27 (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      Not enough as per which policy? 92.12.83.59 (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      Notability policy. The book is not notable. 89.8.145.27 (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      Which Notability policy? 92.12.83.59 (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      If you go to your talk page and ask for guideline on the Simple English Wikipedia about notability, then I think someone can help you to get acquainted with the workings of Simple English wiki. (In regard to good news about the book that you hold in such high regard: It has not been deleted at English wikipedia yet - first someone would have to write the article there (before it would get deleted). 89.8.145.27 (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      I do not need to ask for guidelines on my talk page because I know where to find it when I need it. I asked you to make policy based argument on Rfds as we seek consensus here, not voting and perhaps this is the reason why you shouldn't vote on everything
      Besides, as pointed out earlier, not just me but another editor has already asked you to make policy based arguments on Rfd because if you think English Wikipedia article is a requirement for notability then you are wrong. 92.12.83.59 (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      Please do not base your rant on "because if you think ...". My arguments in this discussion stand. I wish good luck to anyone who is trying agenda pushing - to make an encyclopedia article out of a book that got to number 87 on a list at USA Today (newspaper/website). 89.8.145.27 (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      You are being uncivil again! Can you please tell me exactly where I said '''because if you think.. ? And your arguments do not stand just because you say so. This is why I am requesting you again to make policy based arguments to reach a consensus instead of making disruptive comments and personal attacks. 92.12.83.59 (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      I will tell you exactly what post, from which I have quoted you: See "14:43, 11 November 2021". 89.8.145.27 (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Symbol delete vote.svg Delete No significant coverage on reliable sources. 89.8.145.27 (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages for books that have been on a list at USA Today or the Wall Street Journal the New York Times. 89.8.145.27 (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    I have checked your contributions and I noticed you do not have any positive contributions yet except for putting deletion votes and sometime with ridiculous rationale like you did here as well. FYI, this is not a list but the best-sellers list and USA Today or the Wall Street Journals are not yellow pages but reputed news publishers that do not require attribution when used for citation. If you have not read the notability guidelines on NBOOOKS on the English Wikipedia then first, please do so before commenting so that your comment/!vote at least make sense. 92.12.83.59 (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages for books that were number 87 on a weekly list at USA Today (newspaper/website). (User:92.12.83.59 is not being truthful has made non-truthful statements in the post of 13:49, 11 November.) 89.8.145.27 (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC) 89.8.145.27 (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    - Strike-out for personal attacks. --92.12.83.59 (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • FWIW: Zero mentions at English wiki, as far as I can see. 89.8.145.27 (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Zero mentions at English wiki - is not a criteria. Perhaps, you need to read the guidelines first. 92.12.83.59 (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Zero mentions at English wiki, is an interesting fact. (User: 92.12.83.59 is the one using the word "criteria".) 89.8.145.27 (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
How is it? Do you have a citation to prove this claim? Because Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source and indeed having a English Wikipedia is not a criteria for notability. 92.12.83.59 (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The book has zero mentions at English wiki. It is a fact, and it is what it is, without being a criteria for anything. 89.8.145.27 (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment If this book if found to be notable because of being number 87 on a list at USA Today, then Wikipedia could have an article called List of books that have been number 87 on a list at USA Today. Is that desirable? 89.8.145.27 (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    Why? Is there any particular policy for creating such pages? Please comment on the content and not on OTHERSTUFF. Tell me have you read NBOOK? have you checked the WSJ article? Have you seen the title best seller? 92.12.83.59 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Note to the closing admin - I noticed a reluctance to make policy based arguments by User:89.8.145.27 despite another registered user asking him to do the same on another Rfd. The user is making claims based on original research without providing any valid criteria to reach a consensus and even resorting to personal attacks. Perhaps the user thinks it as voting system and it is essential to have an English Wikipedia article in order to prove notability so their comments should be assessed accordingly please. 92.12.83.59 (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Note to the closing admin - It is not always easy to see thru smoke and mirrors: The book is number 87 on a list at USA Today. Twisting words or untruthful paraphrasing by one - or personal attacks by the other? Something of that sort has taken place. But that does not lift the book from non-notable to becoming the opposite. 89.8.145.27 (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I'm not seeing anything here that will make this book pass WP:GNG. NBOOKS is a guideline on a different project, and, in fact, it doesn't meet the guideline there either. I'm assuming the IP above tries to make a point for criteria #1, but the weekly USA Today list itself is not-notable, nor is it (as far as I can see) published by other reliable sources. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Also this RfD is becoming a bit of a clusterfuck, so I think this should be closed ASAP as it has been already going on for seven days. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I am referring to the criteria #1 and if we consider the GNG criteria, then it states, ''If a topic has received important coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.'' which in this case, the book has been a bestseller in the Wall Street Journal's Bestselling Books. The coverage is important as well as from reliable source that is independent of the subject. There are other reviews of the book from other sources. 92.12.83.59 (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The keyword you are missing to notice (or write in bold, in your case) is important/significant coverage, which in Wiki-language misleadingly doesn't mean "worth a lot", but rather means "detail", so no trivial mentions/namedrops or simply a few sentences, instead, a long section/paragraph in a reliable source about the subject of the article. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. In that case, the Wall Street Journal link has several paragraphs on this book only. Does it count? 92.12.83.59 (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding "important coverage": Being on a list at Wall Street Journal is arguably not enough to get an article in encyclopedia Wikipedia; Arguably it is not important coverage. 89.8.145.27 (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Being on a chart of best-selling books is what makes it notable. This also applies to musicians. 92.12.83.59 (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
You are comparing apples and oranges, one might say. However, the book does not have "a long section/paragraph in a reliable source about the subject of the article. [... from post at] 15:57, 11 November ". 89.8.145.27 (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The article does have a long section/paragraph from the Wall Street Journal link[3]. 92.12.83.59 (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The paragraph is (arguably) about having made it on the bestseller list; The Wall Street Journal is not an independent source, when it writes about lists that are made by the Wall Street Journal. Furthermore, I have to go with what the wiki-article is saying - this discussion is not about me teaching you or anyone how to search for anything remotely notable in a source, and then presenting that information in a wiki-article; You are very welcome to try to rewrite the wiki-article so that it in the future can tell about something notable. 89.8.145.27 (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 05:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.nynox.solutions/index.php?title=Project:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2021/60_Days_to_LinkedIn_Mastery&oldid=361885"