Talk:Gardner's Art Through the Ages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

I have taken the SPAM accusation to the book's discussion page: [[1]]

Respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate on my edit summary.... While my concerns about spam remain, there are other reasons for removing the material from this article that are not relevant to the speedy deletion discussion at talk:Drawing Upon Art: Workbook for Gardner's Art Through The Ages (LG Williams). In particular, this article is about "Gardner's Art Through the Ages". This is therefore not the place for an elaborate treatment (half the article!) of "Drawing Upon Art", by an unrelated author. Furthermore, this is particularly the case when, for the moment at least, "Drawing Upon Art" has a detailed article all of its own. If you are genuinely interested in improving this article, rather than promoting your own, my suggestion is that you would make a far more valuable contribution if you were to spend some time building upon this article to improve its quality and comprehensiveness. You might even see fit to use "Drawing Upon Art" as a reference! Debate (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as I saw that the article was a 'stub' I attempted to give the article some girth -- so I have removed any 'elaborate' treatment on its behalf. Therefore, I hope this very minor addition is to your satisifaction. Thank you for your input and explanation, Respectfully --Art4em (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious Tags

Promoting "Drawing Upon Art: Workbook for Gardner's Art Through The Ages" on this page adds nothing to the article and is essentially advertising (see WP:Spam). There are also verifiability (see WP:V) problems. The book appears to be, at best, a self published work. The only references that can be found to support its existence are the author's own. The article states that the work is to be published by Cengage in April 2008. It is now May 2008 and there is still no evidence that the book exists, nor are any reliable sources available to support its existence. To date, no university or public library catalogue I have searched returns any reference to the book and the Cengage website makes no mention of it. I must say, however, that although I would remain dubious about the reference remaining in this article, if anyone can find a public or university library with the item in its holdings, or a reference direct from Cengage, I would feel a little more comfortable. Debate (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me address the following:

1: Adds nothing? The workbook is directly linked to the book, hence the one sentence is worthy or merit and is very 'notable'. ACCUSATION IS FALSE.

2. Advertising? If notable information is advertisting, then all information is advertising. Since I do believe information is pertinent the ACCUSATION IS FALSE.

3. Verifiable problems? Yes, this is true, however, I expect this to be remedied by Cengage and Amazon.com very soon.  :) No worries here.

4. Self-Published? I am sure that LG Williams would love to own Cengage Publishing! ACCUSATION IS FALSE.

However, I am very concerned about Debate's uncomfortably! For heaven's sake! Please, I am more than happy to have the sentence deleted until it is on Cengage's website or on university bookstore shelf near Debate. Yes, indeed, get comfortable till its necessary to wipe away ones ones false accusations and wrong assumptions. Just please, don't delete the article or discussion record, I'll let you know when its loaded on their webpages. No worries here...my pleasure --Art4em (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Per consensus, references to "Drawing Upon Art" in this article will be deleted until the work appears on the Cengage website. As a record of the deleted material will still be available via the history tab it can be reinstated relatively easily as required. While I still have concerns that references to the work in this article could be interpreted as advertising, in the spirit of compromise I won't raise any further objection to its inclusion once evidence of its publication by Cengage, or any other notable publisher, is available. Art4em's conciliatory gesture is noted and appreciated. Debate (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)