Talk:Burn Rate

Basic start in place.

Basic start in place. Would like to add:

-litle more book content (names dropped, etc.)

-anything else in terms of reactions from the people lampooned

-some links to dotcom implosion (not sure where on wiki) TCO (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's build off of sources present

We have several reviews, interviews, the book, and one Gawker peice to bulid from. Many of the reviews and interviews are not restricted to the text but give related discussion of how the book was recieved, how described principles have reacted, etc. Please read and refernce these to help build the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 16:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability discussion

There were some insertions of deletion requests very quickly while this article was in process of creation. These consisted of dropped textboxes, with no discussion, or evidence of familiarity with the book or category contribution to the area (business books). Some of the left textboxes were actually done by robots.

In any case, this is the place to discuss whether you think the book is not notable. If so, I welcome the discussion. For reference, here is Wikipedia:Notability (books). The following first criteria is relevant (direct quote 25OCT08 version):

"This page in a nutshell: A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]"

Note from the article that it has 12 listed reviews (and this may not be an exhaustive list, the reviews would be ten years old and I did a Google search). I did NOT include a few net reviews from the Google search that were on people's home pages and the like or at universities. Certainly the attention that The New York Times spent on the book and the controversy it generated is noteworthy. Also note that NONE of the reviews are "simple plot summaries" and that ALL contain higher level discussion of the book's implications in terms of thinking about dotcoms. Also, that none of them are "jacket blurbs" or the like.

Note also two major media did interviews with the author where the questions (read the interviews) are contextual (not just about the book, but placing it within a milleu of implications). In addition, continued news stories about Wolff and Newser refer to Burn Rate (see footnote, there are more if you want them) so that it is clear that the book was notoriuous enough as to have implications on current Wolff activities.

But, I welcome your thoughts. Pull up a log to the fire and let me know what you're thinking.TCO (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Burn Rate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007034922/http://gawker.com/news/cautionary-tales/michael-wolff-and-newser-no-contract-no-nda-317383.php to http://gawker.com/news/cautionary-tales/michael-wolff-and-newser-no-contract-no-nda-317383.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612150331/http://archive.salon.com:80/21st/books/1998/06/cov_12booksa.html to http://archive.salon.com/21st/books/1998/06/cov_12booksa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)