Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Complete Baby and Toddler Meal Planner
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. While on a cursory glance, it would appear as if there is no consensus here. However, the three individuals leaning toward keep did not comment on the nom's reasons for deletion, but instead only focused on notability. This article is unsourced (one of the article standards) and has POV/advertising issues (another article standard is NPOV). This topic very well may be notable enough to deserve an article, however this particular article is not it. Feel free to recreate this article, if you do it following wikipedia's guidelines and policies (make sure it is verifiable and neutral). Andrew c [talk] 01:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Complete Baby and Toddler Meal Planner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
No sources, written like an advertisement. High on a tree 11:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC) (Note: Author is a book publicist by his own account.)[reply]
- Delete per nom - unreferenced advertisment. Shalom Hello 13:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Certainly there are some claims to notability in there, but these really need sourcing and I don't know enough about the subject to gauge these.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have foud that most such books fail to acount for the additional 2-3 oz./day of protein they eat off the floor (bugs, toenail clippings, etc...) ~ Infrangible 03:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom, Shalom and, I think, Infrangible. Bearian 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge with redirect. While I'm not generally a fan of articles on this type of book, an updated edition of this book ranks 48 in book sales at Amazon.co.uk [1] & the publisher section there claims over a million sales and lots of relevant press reviews. Certainly needs references for the claims but that's true for many articles. Alternatively, the material could be merged into the author's page, Annabel Karmel, retaining the redirect. Espresso Addict 00:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep This book has sold a heck of a lot of copies over a long period of time. Nick mallory 12:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Espresso Addict and Nick mallory, you may both be right about the notability of this book, but notability was not the reason for this AfD. The problem is that the text is completely unsourced, written in an advertisement style (and quite obviously intended as an advertisement). If someone would come up and rewrite the article in a neutral, well-referenced way, I would be happy to withdraw the AfD, but during the last 12 days, no one seems to have cared enough. Regards, High on a tree 23:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I have too little understanding of the popular book publishing market to source the claims properly, and the sheer numbers of hits on Google all copying the same info sourced from the author/publisher are a bit offputting. The author does have a bio at the bbc [2] which supports some of the marketing claims. Espresso Addict 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Espresso Addict and Nick mallory, you may both be right about the notability of this book, but notability was not the reason for this AfD. The problem is that the text is completely unsourced, written in an advertisement style (and quite obviously intended as an advertisement). If someone would come up and rewrite the article in a neutral, well-referenced way, I would be happy to withdraw the AfD, but during the last 12 days, no one seems to have cared enough. Regards, High on a tree 23:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Extremely notable book, and references are far from hard to find. A simple Google News archives search brings up several, including the statement that the book, as of 2005, has sold over 2 million copies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 18 July 2007 (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.