Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The She Spot (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The She Spot

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably non notable book, part of an obvious promotional campaign for the author , See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Witter The book is in a large number of libraries, but this doesn't matter--it's more important to avoid promotionalism -- accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google results show notabity, especially that source from google books. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 12:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, the only thing close to a reliable source in Google and Google News searches is the Salon.com article in the references. Hence, this fails notability. Second, the fact that this book can be found on Google Books does not demonstrate notability. What is needed is other books, or book chapters in other books, that discuss this one. Third, as the nom has indicated - this appears a book promotional campaign on Wikipedia - please see comment below. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Kudos to DGG for noticing this as a promotional campaign on Wikipedia. I only wish DGG had placed both articles in the AfD. I am referring to the separate AfD linked above Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Witter. That AfD is an important component to this AfD. Both articles pertaining to these AfD's were started by the same red-linked account, which appears to me to be single purpose account (see contributions here: [1]) This first SPA only edited for the "She Spot" and the author biography "Lisa Witter".

Additionally, when viewing the edit history of the author biography, it can be seen that article was earlier edited by three SPAs; the first SPA has already been mentioned.

The other two red-linked SPAs have only edited the author bio --- [2] (June-July 2008), - and - [3] (January 2010-August 2011). Also, upon viewing the talk page of the spa Hailey 113 - - User talk:Haley113 -- it can be seen that this person attempted articles on this book's co-author Lisa Chen (which was deleted), and his or her user page was deleted because "User page is utilized inappropriately for promotion of book - see - - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Haley113.

So, all of this presents the appearance of a campaign to promote this book some years ago. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lisa Witter. Combined, there is enough to meet GNG. Not tons, but enough. Montanabw ^(talk) 10:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NBOOK criteria. Article was expanded and cleaned up since original publishing per first AFD nom and article history. Hmlarson (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK as one can check by looking at sources retrieved through the Google links provided on the top of the page. The sources do not just mention the book, but discuss it. Probably should not be merged to Lisa Witter because this book has two authors. My very best wishes (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - it's notable enough but it could be merged with the Witter BLP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, 1st afd found article to be notable and a 'keep', notability is not temporary, although articles may be reassessed, not sure about nom's reasoning of promotionalism, although agree that author article definitely needs a cleanup if kept, DGG, as an experienced editor, has WP:NBOOK tightened up since 2012 (time of 1st afd) or are you concerned about the borderline nature of this article? thanks, Coolabahapple (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The NBOOK standard is rather vague and the interpretation is very variable. I'm looking at such articles more closely because quite a few of them are inserted for promotional purposes, either for promotion of the author or the ideas in the book. . As I said in my nomination, I'm concerned primarily on account of this being part of a promotional campaign. Inevitable variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage, and destroy NPOV and NOT ADVOCACY. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, thanks DGG for the explanation, much appreciated, but i just found a Library Journal review - "If readers can look past the gratuitous puns (as in the title, a play on the "G spot") and the section on the "bloghersphere," they will uncover a serious work that aims to fill a void in resources on marketing to women by providing a concise handbook specifically aimed at nonprofit organizations. .. For libraries serving nonprofit practitioners or academic programs in nonprofit management."[4] (probably why, as you acknowledged, it is held by so many libraries, over 1300 according to WorldCat [5], pretty good for a business/marketing book that was 1st published in 2008:)), so with the other reviews it meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to explain more clearly, the problem is not notability, but promotionalism. I would not challenge a book with this many holdings and even the initial reviews for notability. even if I thought the notability borderline. The problem is promotionalism . Although most of the discussions here are about notability , not all of them are. It is not the only reason for deletion. It is not even the most urgent reason for deletion. We all know copyvio and BLPvio take priority, but in my view, so does promotionalism./ If we have an article about a book that isnt actually notable, it does very little harm; If we don't have one about a somewhat notable book, ditto. We'll never be complete. But if we do have an article that was inserted for the purpose of advertising, it does real harm. It violates the basic principle of NOT ADVOCACY, which take priority over any guideline on notability. It encourages other potential advertisers. It encourages the people who would like to write advertising. It encourages COI editing. It encourages violation of the TOU, tho this article was written before the current TOU. Promotionalism is a reason to delete. If kept, I will try to neutralize it to the extent I can, be removing the cherry-picked quotations, but it would be much bette not be here at all, because it is advertising . DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cool, so we npov it, not delete it? because if is deleted an editor can just create it again with the sources found meeting gng. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2016 (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.