The result was delete. A fair amount of research has been done and the consensus is that sufficient sources do not exist.--Kubigula (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published book; appears to fail WP:NBOOK. A quick google reveals plenty of results - thanks to a cobweb of promotional content associated with the author. Difficult to have an article on this topic without promoting the author and their fringe position, since few independent/mainstream sources have paid any attention to it. bobrayner (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Rahulchic (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Marketers_Are_Liars => Contains Amazon.com as reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Brand Contains no references at all!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_to_Great Contains blogs as external links and no other ref.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_New_Thing => Two liner review. No reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Change => One line review. No reference.
Now these are not the only ones having such problem. These are only samples. But these have not been deleted. Perhaps because there has not been a fine networking like we have of "delete anti-Islamic texts" everywhere.
Btw, Bobrayner and Dougweller have edited the Wikipedia page; are they satisfied now? Some of their edits have left the article with fewer references than before - as if skies will fall if I use amazon.com link in the Wiki article.
Still waiting for Wikipedia moderators. We are not voting here for anything. We want an unbiased decision. My take is that the present shape of the article is better than 80% of book reviews available on Wikipedia. Let it remain there and spend our energies in better things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulchic (talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rahulchic (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]