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. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard[edit]

60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

Article fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I searched in multiple databases and archival research sources - but was unable to find any secondary sources independent of the article subject that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V and significantly discuss the work whatsoever. It also appears that there were absolutely zero book reviews of the book. Cirt (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 60 minutes or Werner Erhard. Werner Erhard has 800 google news hits [1] I am not claim that "notability is inherited, that is why I suggest redirect. Ikip (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book itself has far less google news hits: [2]. Perhaps notability would be inherited if the individual was a noted author and was also the author of this book - but in this case neither applies. Cirt (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as the book is non-notable, its title is not a plausible search term and thus there is no need for a redirect after deleting the article. Cirt (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, 'spin' not published by a mainstream publisher, but by a non-notable press, 'breakthrough publishing' associated with Erhard, and hardly any mentions in WP:RS such as books etc. [3][4] are the only such brief mentions I can find. Sticky Parkin 23:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Jane Self. The book itself is not notable. I can find no reviews or significant coverage about this book. As we do have an article on the author, then a merge to the author's article is appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This rationale would make sense, if the author of the book were independently notable, and if there were independent reliably sourced info to merge into the parent article. In this case neither is true, and I have nominated that article for deletion as well. It also fails WP:NOTE, and lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If the author article is deleted, then this goes to. If the author's article survives AFD, then it can be merged. -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable point, but I submit that there is no content to merge into the author article, as there is nothing in WP:RS sources about it. Cirt (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Note related Afd just put up by nom: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Self. Location (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you, I mentioned that I put it up, in my above comment, but forgot to link directly to it. Both the book and the author are non-notable, both fail WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One of many books written about Werner Erhard. I was looking for a reason to redirect this to Jane Self or Werner Erhard; however, neither the author or her book are notable per WP:AUTHOR OR WP:NB. Location (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Every time someone disagrees with Cirt he sends them a private message asking them to change their vote "revisit their position". Isn't that canvassing? TomCat4680 (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A message to someone's wiki talk page is in fact a public, not a "private" message. And posting a helpful notice to an individual informing them that their comment has been responded to, if they are not necessarily watchlisting every single articles for deletion discussion that they comment in, is not canvassing. Cirt (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you ask people to change their vote "revisit their position". That's canvassing. "messages that are written to influence the outcome". TomCat4680 (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TomCat4680: Please, do not misrepresent me. I kindly requested two individuals to revist their comments at the AfD after I had commented in response to the points they had raised. That is most certainly not "canvassing". Cirt (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: TomCat4680 (talk · contribs) disingenuously placed this note here and falsely places in quotes words I have not said. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cirt. A non-notable hatchet-job book. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Neutrally worded notice of this debate given at talkpages of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. Cirt (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cirt looking in multiple archives and databases is exactly what should happen for every AfD. If it did, we'd actually be keeping and deleting based on sources, instead of google news and gut feeling. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable book--only 65 scattered libraries in WorldCat and no content worth merging. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Werner Erhard.--Pink Bull (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero WP:RS sourced material, thus nothing to merge. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 September 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.