Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Ahead Publishing

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 all except:

• Comment: Per badlydrawnjeff's comments below, I'd like to make clear that I am asserting all of the articles below also fail notability on their own terms, above and beyond the walled garden/spamvertisement problem. (I will provide details for any individual article upon request.) This is the entire problem of why walled gardens are bad for Wikipedia: It allows people to mistakenly fall into circular reasoning traps when it comes to AfDs (e.g. "Keep Candice E. Jackson, she's notable!" "For what?" "For writing Their Lives!" "But why is Their Lives notable?" Because it was written by Candice E. Jackson, and she's got an article!"). (Please note I'm not accusing badlydrawnjeff of circular reasoning; I consider his vote 100% legit. It was just his comments that led me to think I didn't make a clear enough nominating statement.) --
  Aaron 16:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That's fine, and I want to assert that I didn't think your comments were directed at me before I read your last note. I do think many (most?) of these meet our standards, but some do not. Just like I wouldn't want to see the obvious ones (These Lives, Help! Mom!) deleted because some of the minor ones might not meet it, the minor ones shouldn't just be kept because of the high notability of two of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Also nominating for deletion, none of which are notable and seem to exist only to reinforce the false notability of the original article:

Candice_E._Jackson

Eric M. Jackson (third nomination)

Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine

(second nomination)

Thank You, President Bush

Norman Book

The Stanford Review

Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed

Katherine Debrecht

The PayPal Wars

--

• Agreed. Delete the lot. Emeraude 21:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: And here come the
  Aaron 23:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I personally know that many of these articles are legitimate, and include information worth keeping on Wikipedia. Please don't delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.118.223 (talk • contribs) 13:52, October 1, 2006

— 128.12.118.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

These articles chronicle important issues in our current society. Any decision to delete would not be in keeping with the first Amendment of the constitution. There are many articles that relate to a seemingly small subject, but these articles are rightly retained by Wikipedia for the purpose of making that information known to the public. Do not delete!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadna13 (talk • contribs) 19:18, October 1, 2006)

— Kadna13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep all for now. The publisher is certainly notable, due to the books on this list - specifically "Help, Mom!" and "The Paypal Wars." However, a discussion could be useful on some of the other articles. As they're all related to the publisher, keep all for the time being. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand a bit, "Help, Mom!," "The Paypal Wars" and "These Lives" have all recieved noteworthy independent media coverage. Their authors, therefore, would also be worthy. I'm not sure if the rest of the list falls in, but I again suggest individual AfDs for the few that may be questionable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the lot per nom. I think this publisher may become notable in the future, but not quite now. At this point it looks like a moderate presence in a niche market. At best, I think all the articles should be merged into one. -
  ave) 14:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I said delete before and Kadna13's comment above confirms me in this. I'm not American, but I do know the First Amendment and that it starts with the words "Congress shall not...". Wikipedia is not Congress, so delete away. Emeraude 17:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Stanford Review is the second most-often published student publication from the Stanford Undergraduate Student Body. There are Wikipedia pages for the Dartmouth Review, the Cal Patriot, The Harvard Salient, and other such publications that are produced by undergraduates around the country just like The Review. None of them should be marked for deletion, and neither should the Review. And as for me being an SPA, I'm sorry but I am a new member of the group and as a college student don't currently have time to edit a lot of articles. I plan to do so in the future. Please Do not delete the Stanford Review from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.118.219 (talk • contribs) 14:26, October 2, 2006

— Possible

• • This student makes a very good point. Deleting the Wiki entry for The Stanford Review means we would also need to delete The Dartmouth Review, California Patriot, The Cornell Review and Harvard Salient. --Turkey2020 22:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except
  Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed, which has some small notoriety -- mostly for its amusement value -- as per nom, who has my thanks for finishing a process I intended to start months ago. --Calton | Talk 01:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • How do you judge notoriety, then? --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete please -- extremely non-notable. BuckRose 04:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how are you judging notability, exactly? --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. The publisher is notable both for its books and for the fact it is the publisher of
  State of Denial, too. If it is a book that received media coverage, sparked debate, and facilitated the exchange of ideas, it shouldn't be censored regardless of its political point of view. --Turkey2020 22:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC) — Turkey2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

• Comment: 1) One look at my user page should be enough evidence that political motivations had nothing to do with my nominations. I nominated them because they're a
  Aaron 22:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: 1) Aaron seems to imply that entries he nominates for deletion shouldn't have references or additional information added in an attempt to improve them. 2) When it is pointed out that the articles he wants to delete have long lists of sources (including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Publishers Weekly, NewsMax, US News & World Report, Forbes, Washington Post, etc. etc.) which contradict his non-notable claim, Aaron does not defend his original hypothesis but instead dismissively uses "extensive references" in quotes as if that means the references can therefore be ignored. 3) Aaron calls into question the credibility of who makes edits but not the edits themselves. 4) Aaron ignores valid attempts at benchmarking other articles. 5) Aaron claims my point about WND Books is "misleading" for some reason because the books do not hit store shelves for a couple of months; such reasoning is convoluted, and the fact that the publisher won the contract ipso facto further contradicts Aaron's claim of non-notability. Conclusion: None of the points Aaron makes demonstrate the claim on non-notability; this claim is contradicted by numerous verifiable references to independent media sources. --Turkey2020 00:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Other than one point, I will let Turkey2020's actions, edit record and statements speak for themselves: The generally accepted standard for good faith editing of articles in AfD is to simply make the edits and then come to the AfD and post a note to the effect of, "I've made an attempt to improve this article/these articles, and I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at them now and see if they're any better before making a vote. Thanks." (Or, alternatively, to do the reverse: Post that you intend to edit and then carry out those edits and come back to let the AfD participants know that you're done.) Instead, T2020 made the edits quietly and then came in here to post a "keep all" vote using his comments to imply that all the articles were already in the state they're in now (not that his changes have done anything to address the concerns I raised in the nomination; IMHO some of them have been made worse), and that my nom was thus making fraudulent claims. Are those the actions of a good faith editor? You make the call. --
  Aaron 00:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete all except Paypal Wars. Apparently it won some award. If the award does not create notability (not all awards do), delete Paypal Wars as well. It is worth noting that these articles are related to the Rod D. Martin and TheVanguard.Org articles, which were total vanispamcruft. Also I am agnostic on the question of the Stanford Review, which is after all a legit publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.9.65 (talk • contribs)

• Keep it but at some conditions like more developpement to the entry and adding the neutrality of this article is disputed and I'm agree with Turkey2020 on one point, if we have an entry about
  Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed? And to my eyes, this book critic more the current "Social liberals" then the "classic liberals" or "economic liberals" or libertarians. --Sd-100
  October 5 2006, 19:25 Eastern time zone

• Comment as regards
  WP:CORP should provide a pretty good basis for a decision. Greenshed 21:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all except Paypal Wars (and by extension Eric Jackson) per 68.51.9.65, as EJ/PP Wars appears to satisfy
  WP:BIO. Although contemplated keep on Thank you President Bush due to its lineup of contributors, its appears to be purely destined for partisan causes and almost certainly Vanity for Dubya. Its very low Amazon rank (in the 494 thousandsths) is telling me this is obviously a red card. The political parties are skilled at setting up front organisations to channel campaign finance, and it appears it would come as no surprise that they are all helping each other here to get their causes noticed. For Stanford Review, I vote mergeto Stanford University unless/until its notability independent of the University can be proven. Ohconfucius 06:56, 7 October 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.