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 --JForget 23:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starving the Monkeys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A disputed speedy and disputed prod (the latter removed without apparent improvement). Self-publication attracts no notability; a brief Google search reveals nothing that would confer or bolster notability, no reliable sources (two blog mentions and the author's own promotional materials). no verifiability. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article needs work, but it doesn't need to be deleted; I consider it to be notable given that you can purchase it on Amazon.com. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A disputed speedy and disputed prod (the latter removed without apparent improvement)"

The above statement is incorrect. See the talk page for the article for justification for the author to remove the PROD tag.

Again, the book addressed in the article contains strong political content. Removal for taste (and ultimately, notability is a subjective matter by Wikipedia's own standards), would indicate censorship in this forum. If Wikipedia allows any complaint to remove articles that have strong political content, then this venue is worthless as an open forum.

It remains to be seen whether logic or reason prevails, or whether Wikipedia is a thin veneer for censorship.

The fact that some community members object SO STRONGLY and have objected SO QUICKLY after the posting of the original article indicates notability on its own accord, doesn't it? This when there are plenty of meaningless articles on Wikipedia that get no challenge at all.

I find it interesting that when the first complaint (not-notable) was so easily swatted aside by referencing Wikipedia's own book-notability criterion, that another complaint, this one subjective, immediately arose to take its place. This may make the book's author correct in many ways ...

LandHawg (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the policy on what Wikipedia is not, specifically, that it is not a soapbox, not a forum and not censored. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 22:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. You can buy lots of non-notable things on Amazon.com, being available for sale there doesn't automatically confer notability. Note that Amazon lists the publisher as "Starve Monkey Press (June 2, 2009)." Vanity press? This, and the fact that the only sources available seem to come from the author, concern me per the guidelines regarding self-publishing. The notability criteria for Wikipedia are well-defined and straight-forward, and the objections here have nothing to do with the topic of the book or content of the article. Also, we quickly and vigorously delete a LOT of non-notable content every single day. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 22:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, I wasn't even aware of that guideline. Delete then. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I see no sign of notability. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find reliable source coverage to suggest notability, but then again the book was released this year, so no objection to recreating if/when it does become notable. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Amazon will sell anything including nonsense print-on-demand bot-written books. What is needed is actual evidence of notability in the form of significant critical review of the book. I found none. -- Whpq (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails notability. Smells of self-promotion. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable small-press book with no reliable sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the attempt by the PR firm of Glenn Beck, a notable person, to censor or edit the promotion of this book by the author meet the notability criteria? See the link at the top of the book's site where Premiere Radio shut down marketing because the author disagreed with Beck. If it managed to get their attention so quickly and cause such a strong reaction, then a sort of meta-notability is now at play. The fact that a small press author is able to cause a rankle among right-wing notables is itself notable. LandHawg (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering that the source of the claim is related to the book, I'd have to say no. And after reading it, I don't even see the attempt to "censor" anything. They simply don't want him on their show, which is their absolute right. Claiming "censorship" and using their names to manufacture controversy and draw attention to his book is one of the lower forms of promotion. I have even less respect for the author after reading that. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift36, thank you for your opinion but your respect or lack of respect for the author is unimportant. If we only allow articles here based on a consensus of respect there would only be a few pages, if that. And you misrepresent the author's claim, which is not that Glenn Beck wouldn't have him on his show, the author never asked for that. The issue that is notable is that Glenn Beck wouldn't sell the author advertising space while claiming publicly in numerous forums to want to hear all points of view. Perhaps your stated bias influences your perspective on the issue.LandHawg (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The "issue" is absolutely non-notable. There is a letter that declined to advertise the book. Period. See WP:NOTE for Wikipedia's specific usage of notability. And quite frankly, even under a broader dictionary definition, it would still fail to be deemed notable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The letter adds WP:COI to the pile. And the article is written as an ad (see the "Criticism" section) and might even qualify as a G11 speedy. PhGustaf (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2009 (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.