Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America Deceived


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Proto /// type  10:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

America Deceived

 * Delete the book does not appear to be notable. The author is a red link, a previous version of the article states: The book is baned on Amazon.com with the only "source" being a search into Amazon not resulting in finding the book. So, this book is not listed on amazon.com...another previous version had Craigslist as a "source" for a book review.  and now there is a review from some site called "Shvoong" (which I also don't think is a reliable source.) Jersey Devil 04:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, not verifiable with reliable sources. --Coredesat talk 04:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as verifiably not-notable. We need go no further than to look at the publisher, IUniverse (their website), and note that they are purely a vanity publishing house.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. IUniverse is a vanity press.  As expected, it is not in any of the libraries I checked, including the Library of Congress. TedTalk/Contributions 05:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Naming_conventions_%28books%29:
 * ''Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify.

This this book is evidently more notable than an "average cookbook or programmers manual", easly proven by this link and this link, makes the book a speedy keep by wikipedia guidlines. --Striver 05:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's exactly why they are not-notable. IUniverse, as I noted above, and posted a link so you can check yourself, is a vanity press, i.e., you can go there tomorrow and have anything you'd like published if you pay them for it. Posting two links to IUniverse's listing of the book, thus, implies no notability whatever.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So you mean that the book is not included in a "couple dozen of libraries" worldwide? --Striver 11:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Worldcat says it's in NO libraries worldwide --  at least, those that are accessible by Worldcat, which includes the freakin' Library of Congress. --Calton | Talk 12:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being a vanity-press (or "print-on-demand", to use the euphemism) publication is strong evidence that a book is LESS notable than an "average cookbook or programmers manual". There are always exceptions, but this ain't one of them. --Calton | Talk 06:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So if Amazon is in on the conspiracy then so are we. Deceive, I mean Delete per nom. ~ trialsanderrors 07:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, non-notable book published by vanity press--TBC TaLk?!? 08:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fan-film ... errr ... vanity publication -- GWO
 * Point of Info Re: Ted's comment that the book was" not in any of the libraries I checked, including the Library of Congress." I actually checked the Library of Congress and found it under "America Deceived" with the registration #TXu 795-294.  Maybe we should be careful about who we listen to in the discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.117.8 (talk • contribs).
 * Comment, I still cannot see it in the library's online catalog, using title, ISBN, or author. Can you perhaps direct me as to which search criteria and which site you used to do this search?  Or was this an in-person visit to the LoC?  Thanks for any help.  Kuru  talk  20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I seem to be looking at the same library of congress as User:Kuru and User:Calton. No trace of this book. Pascal.Tesson 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. User:205.188.117.8 is referring to the registration of the book's copyright with the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress . However, the fact that the book does not appear in the online catalog means that the author or publisher submitted the book to register the copyright, but after registering the copyright the library did not think the book was of sufficient general interest to keep in the library collection. --Metropolitan90 03:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails every guideline of notability. Pascal.Tesson 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per Coredesat --Starionwolf 04:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Regarding IUniverse, isn't the IUniverse Amy Fisher book listed on her site. So it seems that some IUniverse books have made it on WIKI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.8 (talk • contribs)
 * Strong Keep ---Has anyone here, other than myself, read the book? I found it on Google Books (is that a credible source?).  The book seems to be garnering alot of attention since it's release only a month ago.  Do all IUniverse books make it on to Google Books?  Don't know the answer.  Maybe some time should pass before this deletion decision is made.  To me, Wikipedia is a forward-looking dictionary, antcipating new ideas/books/events.  It seems logical to keep something garnering interest (the book is all over the internet and Google Books and other sites, not too mention the 10-15 members who created this site).  At the least, delay deletion until more facts can be gathered.  The ISBN # is accurate.  I don't know about LOC #.  Also, the poorly attributed material (Amazon ban, who knows if it's true but there is a link on Google Books that no longer works) and the Craigslist Review (have been removed).  Now that I think about it, change my vote from "Strong keep" to "Keep until more details are developed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reader5372 (talk • contribs)

Does this book satisfy said criteria?
 * Forward thinking? No, we are not. Encyclopedias should look onto to the past and present, never to the future. And flattery will get you nowhere. Delete. --Agamemnon2 11:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP is not a crystal ball. Pascal.Tesson 12:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments Google books has 17,600 hits for "iUniverse, inc". I'm guessing that all of iUniverse's books are there.  Anyone can get an ISBN for their book, pamphlet, whatever.  I think the current rate is about $50.  As Agamemnon2 has stated, Wikipedia is not forward-looking.  We have no crystal ball.  If this book becomes notable, then it can always be added. TedTalk/Contributions 00:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Who are these fact-checkers? - Just ran the Google Books search (put in IUniverse to GOOGLE BOOKS), 219,000 pages came up BUT only the first 9 pages (about 90+ books) were IUniverse. The rest had the words "Universe" and "I" in the same sentence (not the publisher).  Also some just had the word "Universe".  Not published by IUniverse.  So if there's 10,000+ books on IUniverse and only 90 are in Google Books, maybe that is notable.  That's less than 1% of the books made by IUniverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.66 (talk • contribs)
 * You probably did your Google search wrong. —Caesura(t) 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * '''Criteria (as per WP guideline):"Nonetheless there is no dictum against any book that is reasonably spread or otherwise well-known or remarkable. Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book. Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify."

1st test - 'reasonably spread' - (Satisfied) Put it in Google and found over 10 pages (100+ sites mentioning it)

2nd test - 'several libraries or bookshops or no-subscription website' - (Satisfied) We already have a website (IUniverse - free previews), Google Books (free chapter previews) and Library of Congress (and more in google search).

3rd test - 'easily consult book' - (Satisfied) Again, chapter available on Iuniverse (free site), and Google Books (free site).

4th test - 'on-line reviews' - (Satisfied) as stated earlier in Svhoong and on other sites.

5th test - 'must have ISBN #' - (satisfied) No debate here.

6th test - 'availability' - See above on all sites listed.

Therefore, keep unless WP changes the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.8 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. The evidence being used in support of this book having an article is very weak, and the guideline being cited by the supporters probably needs to be tightened. Having an ISBN is not a sign of notability for a book, just that the author/publisher paid the small fee to secure such a number. (I don't blame the supporters for citing that, but it should be irrelevant.) The fact that the author/publisher have chosen to make free previews available on the publisher's web site and Google Books does not indicate notability. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince doesn't have a preview on Google Books, and America Deceived does, but that has everything to do with the permissions granted by the respective author/publishers and nothing to do with their relative notability. Nor is having a copyright registration a sign of notability, and no evidence has yet been provided that any library keeps this book in its collection. --Metropolitan90 14:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the above claim that criteria are met is, to say the least, unconvincing. The first test seems to be the number of ghits. I'm not sure this is not a typo but saying that 10 ghits is a sign of notability is, ahem, weak. The 2nd and 3rd point claim that the book is in several libraries and easy to consult which is factually wrong: the IUniverse and Google Books only have excerpts available and the Library of Congress does not have the book as several people have already explained. The 4th and 6th test concerns reviews but there is no indication that any of these reviews have appeared in any source of a reasonnable credibility. Schvoong? Come on... The 5th test is indeed passed but this simply should not be a criterion as Metropolitan90 has pointed out. Pascal.Tesson 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books) for a proposed change to the language there, based on this instructive afd debate--Fuhghettaboutit 19:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No more notable than any other book from a vanity press. Arguments in favor of keeping this have been thoroughly debunked above. —Caesura(t) 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Opinion of Tom Dennen
 * No, I have not read the book, but the discussion should be about the assertion that Homeland Security is violating the 1st Amendment by caging protestors and forcing book outlets to stop stocking ("America Deceived" by E.A. Blayre III).
 * Iuniverse is a subsidiary of Barnes and Noble.
 * The very fact that a discussion of this nature is a recordable piece of contemporary American history should be posted.
 * It does not take a crystal ball to see where jailing dissenters, false flag scenaria and the erosion of civil liberties lead to - book banning for starters. History tells us quite clearly that there are progressive steps on the path America seems to be taking.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TomDennen (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Final comment (I've put in a few...) If you search google for "america deceived" and Blayre you get a grand total of 70 hits. Pretty much all of them are blogs (already a dubious source) but on closer inspection, the reference to the book is in fact part of the user comments... On a slightly related note: this debate motivated the creation of a new set of proposed guidelines for the notability of books. Pascal.Tesson 16:32, 2 July 2006 (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.