Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hell and High Water
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The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn and no further comments other than keep. Note: I am NOT an admin. I am closing this discussion as permitted by Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. Bwithh 13:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hell and High Water
Reads like an advertisement; no attempt at critical analysis or encyclopedic content. Raymond Arritt 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Not necessarily a good reason to delete, but to fix. OTOH I don't look forward to another round of Exploded Consensus or whatever it was. Are there notability criteria for books? William M. Connolley 19:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I added the article on this book, and I certainly welcome contributions by other editors who are more experienced at writing book reviews than me. The book relies on the same science as Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (except that Romm's book is almost a year newer than Gore's). It has only been out for a month, and I have only seen one major media review of the book so far (from the Toronto Star). As soon as more reviews come out, we can add those. The book has quotes from California's energy commissioner, among others, but I did not quote these, since they are being used by Morrow to market the book. -- Ssilvers 19:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you can edit the article so that it doesn't seem so promotional it would go a long way toward satisfying my concerns. Starting out by describing the author as a "physics and technology expert" is awfully generic and has echoes of puffery. Additionally, the author's views are seemingly taken at face value. Can you tweak the article towards a more neutral and objective tone? Raymond Arritt 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You misqote the article. The author is described as a "Physicist and energy technology expert". As described in detail at Joseph J. Romm, he's an MIT PhD. physicist, and a well-published energy expert, who served as the head of Energy efficiency and renewable energy at the US Dept of Energy. What details do you think are most appropriate? I've tried to tweak the article for NPOV as you suggest, but the article needs some more editors to contribute. It was only created an hour ago. -- Ssilvers 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you can edit the article so that it doesn't seem so promotional it would go a long way toward satisfying my concerns. Starting out by describing the author as a "physics and technology expert" is awfully generic and has echoes of puffery. Additionally, the author's views are seemingly taken at face value. Can you tweak the article towards a more neutral and objective tone? Raymond Arritt 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. My original concerns have been addressed, and the article is now a useful (and neutral) contribution. Raymond Arritt 05:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, could possibly use some more NPOVing, but that's a reason for cleanup, not deletion. delldot | talk 16:52, 6 January 2007 (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.
