Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Price Theory: Economics is Mistaken

Price Theory: Economics is Mistaken

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

I see no clear evidence that the book is notable. Interviews with the author are normally public relations, not substantial independent source . WorldCat lists it as just published, with no holdings [1]. Of course that can be deceptive for a non-US book, but The National Library of Mexico catalog does not list it at all [2] nor under any form of the title or author I could devise. (I note the heading of the article is incorrect: the book has not been published in English.) See also the following AfD on the Author DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following, I am posting the opinion of Wikipedia professional editors, backed by Wikipedia itself who had positive views about my article and recommended me to move this article into mainspace. The first one approved of the subject matter, but recommended external sources, (which Wikipedia doesn't have a mandatory preestablished number of them) The second one, recommended to put the article into mainspace and the third one was surprised by the editor who established the article (about the author) for deletion. I would find really serious and unfortunate that Wikipedia’s recommended editors wouldn’t have the criteria to establish from the beginning that the subject matter was irrelevant.

[17:57] <+CharlieEchoTango> iNeedHelp00, you'll need to show that there is significant coverage of the book in third-party publications[17:58] <+CharlieEchoTango> and use book reviews to back the information you provide, not the book itselfHi. What do you think of my article now? FC 23:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC) —

I think it very well written now, the tone is correct, it is properly styled. You could probably move it to mainspace now. Best,Alpha Quadrant talk 23:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops! I just declined your CSD. Was there something I missed? Please let me know. --Kudpung (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC

The book appears in the Library of Congress on Line Catalog, since it was an American publishing house the one who published it in Spanish. FC 23:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Evaluating articles with sources in foreign languages is inherently difficult. I see a reception section with a couple of refs from mainstream Mexican media (mainstream media interviews with the author of a radom book are not common in the US, maybe they are in Mexico?). That would indicate WP:NBOOK #1 is satisfied, but who knows? The topic is ostensibly not a national one, but an international one, so we'd expect that if this is more than a WP:FRINGE theory, the book will be noted by some English sources as well. My main concern right now is that a WP:NPOV article on this is impossible, but that's often the case with newly published controversial books. (As another example, Anatomy of an Epidemic was even put up for WP:DYK in a form that was basically an WP:ADVERT--hardly a critical commentary because the book was too new. This stuff often happens when a book/author has fans editing here.) Tijfo098 (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have included more sources, there are 4 serious periodical and journals' articles and reviews about the book itself plus 2 international electronic interviews) plus several other articles about the author’s work, apart from the book. In addition, the sources either suggest or literally express, “ the book’s value resides in that it could be setting the basis for the development of new theories that could modify economic science.” I don't state it as clear, not to break the neutrality issue. There are many elements, according to Wikipedia's demands to prove notability. FC 21:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has significant coverage in reliable third party sources and meets criteria 1 and 2 of the notability guidelines for books. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep .- 20 verifiable, reliable, 3rd party sources provide notabilitySmithsonian (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reception section list notable media that has covered it. If it has only been released under its Spanish name, that should be the name of the article though. Dream Focus 19:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fringe theory with no credible references other than those stating it exists. MLA (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is not based on Wikipedia’s policies. Please clarify and list, which sources aren’t credible, according to your opinion. FC 00:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment yes my comment is based on Wikipedia's policies - the standard for inclusion is not verifiability. Interesting that the author of this fringe theory book was considered insufficiently notable for Wikipedia and so the article was deleted. MLA (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]