Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Every Science Student Should Know

: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 speedy delete. Inits current form it is a clear advertisement. amd should have been deleted as such even from Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

=[[What Every Science Student Should Know]]=

:{{la|What Every Science Student Should Know}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/What_Every_Science_Student_Should_Know Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|What Every Science Student Should Know}})

Does not meet wp:NBOOKS. The book is scheduled to be published a month from now. All but one of the sources are news stories about the fact that these medical students have published a book. Those stories are from Oakland Press, from Oakland County, Michigan (seems to be the home of one of the authors); Yonhap News Agency, of South Korea (one of the authors is Korean. Translated title: ""Stanford Korean-American Medical Student Publishes Book About STEM Majors"). The AMA Wire article is not about the book but is entitled "How four med students landed a major publishing deal" and gives advice on getting published. The only review is from the Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, which is a student-run, peer-reviewed journal. (Three of the authors are Dartmouth alumni.) [https://issuu.com/dartmouth_science/docs/16w_dujs_print_issue/2?e=0/34538453 actual link here.] LaMona (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep, although it's not published yet the amount of coverage is sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG (barely). Disregarding Yonhap because one of the authors is Korean is like disregarding AP when it reports about Americans - this is no small-town newspaper focusing on village matters. I also disagree with LaMona's interpretation of the other sources; a detailed report on the book's publishing process definitely should be considered coverage of the book. Huon (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

::There's no disregarding of the Yonhap - that is what the translated title says. (Actually the Google translate reads: "Korean participation in the Stanford medical student, wrote Science and Technology Primer" but someone has provided a better translation in the references.) The article appears to be about the Korean student who is one of the authors of the book. I say "appears to be" because I am relying on Google translate, but that seems to be the gist of the story. To me, that is about the Korean student more than about the book. As I said, only one of the articles can be considered a review of the book, and that's what I judge book notability on. When I checked, this book did not have a review in either Kirkus, Booklist or Publishers Weekly. I don't know if those are held until the book is published, though. LaMona (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

:::Huon is spot on, the book was highlighted by the AP-equivalent of South Korea, which is pretty notable for a book 3 weeks ahead of its publication date [many proofs of the book were sent broadly for review, and authors are being contacted for interviews as a result in addition to the formal book-specific reviews, which are bound to come out in bulk in May]. I've added a few more citations today of where the book has been highlighted/reviewed, and can continue to do so between now and May 6.

::::This last comment was by User:Azureick5; Andrew H. Zureick is one of the authors of this book. Azureick5, if you are closely associated with the book, then you have a conflict of interest and it may not be appropriate for you to be either editing the article for the book (now that it is no longer in draft space) or commenting here. I will leave the information about COI and how to handle it here on Wikipedia on your talk page. LaMona (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

:::::User:Azureick5 is now User:Science1guy1 (name changed April 16) LaMona (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

:::::: User:Science1guy1 has declared a connection to / COI with this article. This has been updated on the article's talk page. I would prefer to have all mentions of my previous username and the connected author name deleted if possible. I will no longer edit this article going forward, but will remain an active contributor to Wikipedia articles, particularly those in the sciences. -Science1guy1 —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment, does WP:NOTPROMOTION apply here? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Possibly. The reliance on pre-publication publicity is strong. Also, the article originally included the "back flap blurbs" as "reviews" although I removed that as being promotional. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Every_Science_Student_Should_Know&type=revision&diff=714791529&oldid=714642434 diff] LaMona (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Keep. I strongly suspect we have some WP:COI WP:NOTPROMOTION going on here. Prhartcom (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

::Prhartcom, COI and promotion are not criteria for deletion at AfD, although I admit that it is hard not to let them color our thinking. The question here is strictly about notability of the topic of the article. I have focused on NBOOK as the relevant policy. So please state your !vote in terms of either NBOOK or of the policy that you think should apply. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

:::I see what you mean, because it might still be notable; thanks for the timely and valuable tip, {{u|LaMona}}. In that case, I have checked out the Dartmouth review (it starts on page 40) and it is most definitely a reliable source. I think that it is possibly true that this article was created too early. However, don't delete it; wait a month for the publishing (I have made a note to personally check back later), because I have faith that the article will be expanded with more reliable sources then, making it notable according to criteria 1 of WP:NBOOK. Prhartcom (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

::::If it is the case that in your estimation the article does not meet notability, would you agree with a "Userfy" decision? The article originated in AfC and may have been accepted too soon. "Userfy" would create the time frame needed to pick up additional reviews, and draft space does allow COI editing. LaMona (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

:::::I checked out every source and agree with the nominator's assessment of each of them, but I don't see what the harm is keeping this article in article space another two–to–four weeks. It seems odd stick to the rules so much that to demand that it disappear into user space for that short amount of time while understanding that it is going to soon reappear back into its same place. What I'd be more concerned about is the fact that that the primary author of the article is the primary author of the book. I certainly hope someone else writes the article from here on. BTW, those two long quotes in the article need to be rewritten to summarize most of the quote (we don't normally quote passages that long without using :Template:Quote). Prhartcom (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

::::::User:Prhartcom, you seem to know something about the future -- that there will be sufficient reviews of this book within a few weeks. (Got any good stock market tips? :-)) Personally, I have no idea when the book might become notable. In any case, is there a mechanism for "check back later" that is part of the AfD process? I'm not aware of one, and I don't know what value for "later" is acceptable. How does one administer this? Can AfD's be postponed? LaMona (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete The book has not been published yet and WP:NOTPROMOTION applies at this stage. However, even if I set that aside, the book may not fulfil WP:BKCRIT. It definitely fails points 2,3,4,5. For point 1, it would need articles in sources (independent of the authors/publisher) which discuss the book itself in detail - and not mention it in the context of an author writing a book. The Yonhap article seems to be independent and reliable, but it doesn't address the book in detail. The Dartmouth alumni magazine article discusses the book, but is connected to the authors. At this stage, it seems WP:TOOSOON to have an article about this book. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Adequate sourcing just does not exist. WP:TOOSOON No prejudice against creating an article if the book receives sufficient reviews, or feature story coverage, or otherwise becomes notable at some future date.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.