Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 4-Hour Workweek

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 as notable. AfD isn't the place to request cleanup or expansion. –Pomte 06:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 4-Hour Workweek

I was trying to help another user improve this article by offering suggestions. The article isn't very informative about the book itself, but it's a best-seller book. Many of the refs are blog, and the article seems a bit of a battle ground with little info on the book itself. Busy Stubber (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like WP:SPAM to me. Mh29255 (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I always get suspicious when someone describes their occupation as "entrepreneur". Promotional piece for non-notable book. Lankiveil (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -A Today Show/msnbc interview [1], a NY Times article about the book's influence on the technology sector [2]. I think this could be a start. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good source! Can you add this to the article? --Busy Stubber (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep --- come on, Busy. Can you strike this one and withdraw it too? And to the delete votes above --- the simplest G search sources this article. What gives? --- tqbf 06:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --- how do you nominate something you know is a bestseller? --- tqbf 06:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When the article is a terrible abortion of an article, then you nominate it. The thing to judge by is the article, not the subject of the article. I'd have thought that was obvious. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst we don't delete articles for being battlegrounds, this is a horrible article that has not been helped by some crappy editing. The subject would indeed appear to be notable and perhaps even deserves an article. But this article isn't it. Tear it up and start again (ie, delete). ➔ REDVEЯS is wearing a pointy red hat 09:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need an AfD to tear it up and start over again. --- tqbf 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam. Agree subject is notable Addhoc (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but send in the medics. This book actually is getting a lot of word of mouth publicity and is attracting a decent amount of... what, followers? advocates? I don't know. Enough buzz about it that I'd pick it up myself if I thought I'd have time to read it (working on a 168 hour week). But this page doesn't represent ANYTHING. Surely someone has read the book that can summarize it and the press it's received... Ψν^Psi_nu 15:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up - notable subject. Addhoc (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book is obviously notable. (It's a best seller.) The article probably just needs to be cleaned up. Rray (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the article to see if it needs to be cleaned up? "Probably" covers a multitude of sins here. Please check the article before commenting. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Of course I looked at the article before commenting. Rray (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep its a best-seller for crying out loud. Yawn. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd prefer Wikipedia to have a tenaciously-edited, poor-quality, unreadable article that doesn't focus on the subject and fails to provide any meaningful information rather than having no article at all? What a strange view to have of our customers (the readers, the 99% of people who visit but don't edit): "we know you'd prefer crap over nothing, so here's some crap we voted to keep on hand for you!". And the "Yawn" comment - wow, great way of showing respect for your fellow editors in a collaborative environment. Lovely. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. AfD isn't a cure for badly written articles. Without wasting time with an AfD, we could have blanked out the content on this page and replaced it with a stub, and nobody would have argued. Don't make straw man arguments. --- tqbf 21:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing --- just because something is tendentiously edited by COI editors doesn't mean "delete" solves the problem --- it's a bestseller, the article is going to come back, and we'll be in the same situation. AfD isn't a cure for disruptive editing, either. --- tqbf 21:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other comments are correct. AfD isn't cleanup. If you feel like the article is terrible, then edit it. Deleting it isn't necessary. Rray (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If I understand correctly, this is not the appropriate venue for clean up. I too feel the need for a stretch and yawn. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Addhoc has made the article cleaner, and he and ClanCC are watching over it and reverting edits. (Thank you, Addhoc and ClanCC!). The concensus here seems to be to keep this article, despite the fact that none of the article editors or AfD commenters here seem to have read the book. I haven't read the book myself, nor do I have any interest in reading it. The article started as a lousy biography and didn't improve when changed to a book article. I moved it from a lousy bio article to a lousy book article, then tried to fix the worst stuff. The topic is notable, but the article has little info on what was written in the book itself. If this article is not deleted, I hope all of you will help improve it so that it's a credit to Wikipedia -- not just an article with a long history of vandalism reverts. --Busy Stubber (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, if an article is "hopeless", please blank it and replace it with a stub. This was a misuse of AfD. Can you strike the nom now? --- tqbf 03:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My own opinion is that the article doesn't have enough information about the content of the book to justify keeping the article. I don't think I'll change my vote now, but thanks for asking :). --Busy Stubber (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should read WP:DP before nominating things for AfD; what you just stated as a reason for deletion, isn't. --- tqbf 03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
tgbf is correct. This nomination should be withdrawn, but if it's not, the AfD should be a speedy keep, since no valid deletion reason has been given by anyone. Rray (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2008 (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.