Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FiveBooks

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. Shimeru (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FiveBooks

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

Article about a non-notable company, created by an account associated with the company. No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm afraid RL0919 is right. The subject of the article is not notable enough. --JokerXtreme (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Not quite sure about this. I'll see what others have to say on this. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, FiveBooks is a new website, maybe it is not so notable yet, but it is growing. FiveBooks was a part of www.thebrowser.com before and separated on the 8th of March 2010 as an independent website. FiveBooks has a coverage by english language newspapers , such as Moscow Times, St.-Petersburg Times, Khaleej Times, Prospect Magazine UK and some others. Also a translated interview into German with Hans Ulrich Orbist should appear here: http://www.edition-nautilus.de/programm/belletristik/buch-978-3-89401-450-6.html , published by Edition Nautilus Publicity, Hamburg.

there are some links of syndicated FiveBooks interviews in English language papers abroad:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/arts_n_ideas/article/robert-services-top-5-books-on-totalitarianism/399087.html

http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=30758&highlight=five%20 books

http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=30783&highlight=five%20 books Thank you, Anon111 (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Anon111 — Anon111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB, WP:GNG^[1]. — Rankiri (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a site with really in-depth discussions with top scholars, including Nobel Laureates, about important topical matters. For example, Eric Maskin is interviewed on "Economic Theory and the Financial Crisis", Harvard economist Robert Barro on the "Lessons of the Great Depression." So there's a ton of those - and there are few other resources like this - sort of blending the academic with accessible journalism (well accessible to the general reader) I think the entry needs to be written up better, to show the significance of the site, but not deleted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.170.130 (talk) — 74.39.170.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - I don't think that the quality of the content of the website is questioned here or that it might be quite notable at some time. But right now, it doesn't seem to have significant coverage per WP:GNG. For instance is there a reliable secondary source that describes what FiveBooks is in detail? --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the article about The Browser has issues itself. I've added some tags there. --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JokerXtreme, thank you for your comment. Isn't that a tough bar for a website (or newspaper)? The focus is always on what they're covering rather than what they are - even if it's the New York Times. The site's interviews have been cited in a major economics journals, now appear UK intellectual magazine Propsect (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/fivebooks-trevor-philips/) and have been translated into Chinese, in the economics magazine, Bijiao. I'm not sure that the fact that none of these undertake a huge analysis of what exactly Fivebooks is (especially given it's pretty obvious) means it isn't notable. (there are some more links related to FiveBooks- about the site: http://www.raphkoster.com/2010/03/16/fivebooks-on-games/; syndicated FiveBooks interview: http://www.mbsadr.com/arabic/pages/mozakerat.php?nid=6) Anon111 (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Anon111[reply]
- Well ok, I changed it to a "weak delete" and I will make my mind after I hear to what others have to say first. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~Weak delete~~ Delete as wp:spam, see my comment below. Interesting idea, might take off eventually. But for now, it is still just an interesting idea, not notable by Wikipedia's criteria. The connection with Prospect is exactly one issue old, and there is almost literally NO coverage on Google. In order to qualify for listing in this encyclopedia, there has to have been "independent recognition in reliable sources". Yes, that may be a tough bar for a website to meet - but if it doesn't meet it, it just doesn't belong in Wikipedia. There have to be standards here, otherwise everybody could post any old thing they want, and Wikipedia's value as a reference would be lost. Sorry, maybe in a few years, but not now. --MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean no coverage? In my area, economics it comes up a lot. eg. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Zjc1ZTEzNzgyMjY1YmI2ZDUzMjY3YWZmMDgxNTNhNTI= . I use Wikipedia to find out what things I don't know what they are - are. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is for? I don't normally contribute to these comments, but it seems a bit odd to delete a page that I came to precisely to find out what exactly Fivebooks was, only to see it is being considered for deletion because not enough people know what it is. In my view, if anything, the entry should be expanded, because the description is quite frankly a little sparse. But that I suppose is a whole different discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.133.46 (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC) — 74.44.133.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thank you for the National Review Online link; I believe that does qualify as a mainstream reference in a reliable source (sure it's a blog, but it's a blog of a major publication). That causes me to change my vote from "delete" to "weak delete". A few more references like that and I would change my vote to keep. And by the way, you said the article should be expanded; why not go ahead and be bold and expand it yourself? For example by adding this reference? --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. The source is only interested in Robert Barro, not in his interviewer. — Rankiri (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am switching back to "delete" after reviewing the history of the page and its author. User:Anon111 is the author of the page, and has made literally hundreds of contributions in the past few months, ALL of them related to FiveBooks or The Browser, with whom Anon111 is affiliated. (See User talk:Anon111). After Anon111 was admonished for personally adding so many external links to the two publications on Wikipedia pages, he/she then began asking third parties to add the external links.[2] IMO we are witnessing a spam-storm here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2010 (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.