Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Truth About Caffeine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a book that doesn't seem to be especially notable. – ClockworkSoul 05:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as proposed. Gazpacho 06:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think it's a topic that many people are interested in. Amazon.com reports sales rank of 153,656 in Books. The Amazon.com page quotes reviews by Kirkus Reviews and BookReview.com. See also http://www.wkrc.com/entertainment/BookReviews/story.aspx?content_id=C561EB53-9058-4A64-9484-0E69CFBFD961 TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless evidence of notability is introduced. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The book came out in 2006, so it's still fairly recent. The article is slim and monotonous, but I am willing to do a bit of digging to see if I can find notability (or barring that, notoriety). If I can't find anything, I'll withdraw my vote. Anchoress 07:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This book came to my attension when I was peer reviewing Caffeine. I found it in Category:Caffeine. I then recommend that it either be included in the article or be deleted. It seems that a least one editior involved with the article caffeine, though I suspect most would argee, felt that there is not a notable minority that believes that caffeine is harmful; and therefore it does not belong in the artile Caffeine. And if it is not mentioned in the main article on the subject it is a Wikipedia:POV fork. Granted it is about a book about how caffeine is harmful, but I don't see that much of a difference. Jon513 07:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm also editing the Caffeine article, and am a big fan of the stuff. But personally I don't think an article about a book about caffeine is any more a POV fork than an article about The Last Temptation of Christ is a POV fork to The Bible. Not to put too fine a point on it. :-) It's not a matter of whether or not people believe caffeine is harmful; if we delete the article because we disagree with the POV of the book we are deleting it for the wrong reasons. The issue is whether it can be proven to be notable. Anchoress 07:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless more evidence of notability is presented. Kirkus is a trade publication that reviews thousands of books a year, while Bookreview.com allows authors to pay for reviews; a book reviewed only there and on one local news station's website is a book that has received very little attention. (Adding after edit conflict: I agree that this is not a POV fork and that notability is the issue.) —Celithemis 07:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article seems to be copyvio from here. --IslaySolomon 12:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Celithemis. -- Kicking222 12:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as confirmed copyvio from Amazon.com, article marked as such. (aeropagitica) (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.