Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddha in the Boardroom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 - socking is futile.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddha in the Boardroom

Non-notable self-published book, seemingly based on a non-notable blog. The advert for the book linked on the page as a source doesn't even have a picture of the book, it has a mock-up of sorts. 'Delete. Mak (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • KEEP this is a notable award winning book as seen in MANY business magazines, Television, newspapers written by two award winning business coaches... the book is available at Barnes and Noble and other fine book sellers. This entry is exactly what wikipedia is all about?? Closermac 07:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Closermac
  • Keep It Duh. its a well known book.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Closermac (talk • contribs) - Note Second vote in a row from the same user, the author of the article, whose only edits outside this article are repeated attempt to add vanity entries for the book's author. Fan-1967 13:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's an ad. Delete. GMcGath 13:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mak. Non-notable book, non-notable blog, obvious ad. Does the Buddha recommend sockpuppetry? Fan-1967 13:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:VSCA. book which could not be found on Amazon is probably not notable. Ohconfucius 15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I found a listing on Amazon here, but they don't have a copy (neither does B&N), only a third-party vendor. Sales rank is "None" meaning they've never sold a copy. Fan-1967 15:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--ZayZayEM 15:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have just reverted vandalism of this AFD by an anon IP. Seems some Buddhists are less Buddhist than others. Fan-1967 17:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have just removed comments by fan and GmcGath for reasons of slander and libel and obvious bigotry. attacks based upon personal religious beliefs do not belong here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.7.221 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment They have been restored. Under no circumstances do you ever remove another person's comments. To actually change someone else's comments (as you did here) is the height of dishonesty. Fan-1967 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Not to mention the dishonesty of removing my comment (which has been restored) and making false claims about the deleted comment. To put it bluntly, this sock puppet is resorting to smear tactics. GMcGath 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sadly, not the first time we have seen such tactics from someone claiming to sell enlightenment. Fan-1967 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I may not know all the proper techniques of wiki but you must be joking to think buddha in the boardroom by two award winning authors and a NY Times Best Selling author T. Harv Eker non-notable? You obviously don't know the business books. Just because I don't know albert camus doesn't mean I would delete his entry. Some of your personal comments show this is an obvious attack based on religious belief. This is no place for your racism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.91.82 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I have the greatest admiration for Buddhists and their faith. I also know that honesty is a guiding principle of that belief, which the editor in question clearly does not demonstrate. I thought my meaning was quite clear. Fan-1967 18:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the award that this book/the authors have received is from a fairly non-notable body, as far as I can tell, and even the ad/article doesn't claim that Eker was involved in writing the book, he just has some sort of hand in selling/marketing it. To accuse Fan of racism is just ridiculous. Please stop the sockpuppetry and trolling. Mak (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Although the author may be notable, it is arguable whether every single pieces of his work is notable by association. If the author's book 'Secrets of the Millionaire Mind: Mastering the Inner Game of Wealth' was listed in AfD, I am certain it would fly past as a speedy keep. This one appears to be a mullet. Ohconfucius 07:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment We seem to be losing focus here. If a heretofore undiscovered book by Buddha himself were presented as an advertising blurb as this one is, the article would have to be modified or deleted. Conversely, if the promoter of the book and article hadn't used obvious advertising, vanity links and slanderous attacks, no one would care nearly as much. GMcGath 11:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable book - DavidWBrooks 18:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (Not that it's relevant to the vote, but I wonder if this alleged scam artist from Nashua [1] is the same Keith MacConnell from Nashua?)
Well, since the person who wrote the article keeps adding Keith MacConnell to the Nashua article, I'm guessing it is. Mak (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Nashua's not a very big town. There could be two people by that name there, but it's not that common a name. Fan-1967 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Such an Irish name not common in a New England Mill Town?? You must be joking?? In the larger Eastern-Seaboard metropolitan areas, Irish Americans number over 44 million, making them the second largest ethnic group in the country. The Clan MacConnell or McConnell being among the largest of them..—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.37.96 (talk • contribs)
  • It's totally irrelevant to the merits of deleting the article, but just to close off the argument, there is only one MacConnell in the Nashua phone book, and it's not a Keith or K. GMcGath 12:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete self-published book and while there is no accepted guideline for books, the claims that would set this above the run-of-the-mill self-published work are unsourced and unverifed. Our friendly neighborhood anon might want to try a bit of meditation...--Isotope23 19:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the awards shows to be a "Book of the Year" by Writer's Digest Other press associations are Fast Company (magazine), Business 2.0 Magazine, Success etc.. I also noticed that the paper mentioned above Telegraph of Nashua has a review and schedule of author appearances at Barnes and Noble, Borders Group and other Book Sellers and Hippo Press has several entries.

Doesn't appear to get more legit than this? I wonder if the reason for deletion is not the notabilty issue?? Appears to be motivated by character assasination or religious belief as this seems to have taken a nasty turn with personal insults. Based upon notabilty this is an obvious keeper. Sorry about the anon i'm at work and I'll sign in later.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.37.96 (talk • contribs)

  • Comments Let's take a few points in order: (1) As far as "tens of thousands" of entries, I find 639 total, about 50 unique. (2) I can't find any source that associates the book in any way with Robbins or Ziglar, so I have to wonder what that claim is based on. (3) It did not win "Book of the Year" as claimed. Writers Digest gave the book one of five Honorable Mentions in the category of self-published inspirational books. A book called Letters to Luke actually won in that category [2]. (4) Of the other claims above, the only one I can verify is Hippo Press, a free weekly paper in Nashua. Fan-1967 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hippo Press did review it. But there was never a review or story in the Nashua Telegraph, just a listing of the author as one of dozens signing at the local B&N (no other store) during a Salute to New Authors Day on April 30, which featured "more than 30" authors in a three-hour stretch. - DavidWBrooks 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP based on relevence and notability even 690 google references sounds pretty good to me! seems to be a few voting for the delete but taking a closer look it appears only a couple people working to rid this one with sockpuppets.. BTW and OS DavidWBrooks.. I'm a looooooong time telegraph subscriber and I read your stuff man.. I was actually turned on to wikipedia by the piece you did on it earlier this month.. Keep up the good work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.4.192 (talk • contribs)
  • Additional Comment As I review this more It seems the people who want to delete argue "it's only listed at Barnes and Noble", It's only mentioned in this publication or that, It's only got 690 google references, it's only reviewed by this paper, the telegraph only mentions it for a writers signing at barnes and noble, it's only listed as a third party available on Amazon.. All these onlys add up to a pretty notable work. Far more notable than alot of entries on this site. You better carefully consider your actions as it is probable the next entry you add here will only be half as notable. It seems that the originator didn't realize the merit of this work but mistakes can be forgiven.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.91.82 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment The Barnes and Noble web entry says the book is currently unavailable. GMcGath 22:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment One of the attempts to alter existing comments last night came from 24.61.91.82, the same IP address as the above "Additional Comment". This sock puppet is clearly getting desperate. GMcGath 10:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Realistically, it doesn't matter anyway. We have a vanity-published book, listed but not stocked by the major booksellers, no verifiable sales, no verifiable reviews or significant attention from major press outlets. Even if no vandalism had ever occurred in this AFD, the results were inevitable from the beginning. The repeated vandalism just makes everyone involved feel better about deleting it. Fan-1967 13:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom --RMHED 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Closermac Cynical 22:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom, Fan-1967 and DavidWBrooks. A misleading article on a non-notable book. Victoriagirl 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, advertisement, spam. Robertissimo 02:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:VSCA, non-notable book, advertising. --Terence Ong (T | C) 03:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, that's exactly what Ken Lay needed: the cause of suffering is desire. Still think he would have done the same thing. This is garbled nutcase business management text that not even the most stonecold of yoga attenders in the Simi/Seemy Valley would pick up. NN, vanity, spam.Delete.-Kmaguir1 08:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Non-notable. Ad. Fails WP:DUMB, IMO. Moreschi 13:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Flying Jazz 02:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
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.