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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism, Ethics and Society[edit]

Journalism, Ethics and Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Subject appears to be a non-notable book WP:NBOOK by a non-notable author. A Google failed to turn up much of anything outside of the usual Amazon and related listings. PROD was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - prod was removed a month ago and article was improved and commented on by experianced editors such as User:DGG , book is Wikipedia notable , just the article needs time to be expanded - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The article is two sentences long. It cites no RS sources and makes no claim to notability. The only thing I see DGG doing in the edit history was taking down a premature PROD. The edit history doesn't suggest much has been done. I don't claim infallibility and I have missed things before, but I am not seeing anything here that rings the notability bell. If you want to offer something specific that says otherwise I am absolutely open to any new evidence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Page makes no claim for any notability at all, and an online search was no more helpful. Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. mikeman67 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The fact that the book exists, period, is not enough for a wikipedia entry. Bali88 (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have found one source, but so far it's fairly slow going. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to create an article for the author and redirect there. Anyone know if he's written anything else? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google on the author before I sent this to AfD. Unfortunately the man is cursed with one of those super common names. But FWIW I didn't find anything that screamed notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to David Berry (educator). It took a while and it certainly wasn't easy- I had to try to find one of his books and then work out from there since the name posed a huge problem. I also don't really see where he's done any of the typical author or educator type stuff such as creating a web page for himself. However I've found enough reviews for his work to where he'd justify an article on his own. On a side note, I have to note the irony that someone involved in teaching about media and journalism has such a low Internet profile. It's probably how he wants it, but still... a little funny. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I kind of named him "educator" since I was somewhat at a loss as to what to term him since he's a senior lecturer but also a writer and editor. Since all of his work is meant for the academic world (ie, textbooks), I figured that educator is sort of a good catch all name. Feel free to toss out any different article titles if you can find a better fitting one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to David Berry (educator). On Google Scholar, I found that the book is cited 14 times, but never in detail, always in passing. None of these 14 ever talks about the influence of the book, or the influence of Berry. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. CombatWombat42 (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability of a book is shown by reviews, and tokyoGirl mentions the very large number of them. There';s also the very large library holdings-- 791 according to WorldCat. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see a number of reviews for Barry's works in general that was added to David Berry (educator), but I still only see one review for the book in question here. mikeman67 (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I searched multiple research databases for secondary sources about this book and found nothing. Zero (0) results in NewsBank. Zero (0) results in InfoTrac. No discussion amongst other books in Google Books. Fails WP:NOTE, lack of any meaningful significant discussion among secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2014 (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.