Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Aid to Neuro-ophthalmology


 * 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

An Aid to Neuro-ophthalmology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is one of a series created today by the an editor promoting books and pamphlets written by said editor. In this case, it does not meet WP:NB. PROD was declined on basis that it met criteria #4. However, not only is there no evidence of that, there is absolutely no reviews or coverage on Google (other than the author's own website, or Amazon-type websites to buy the book). This would indicate that the book is not being used by students, etc. as part of their instruction. Singularity42 (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now added the following article to this discussion, after the author (while logged off) declined the PROD. Similar book by same author, and issue remains WP:NB. Singularity42 (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, please see the related discussion at Articles for deletion/World Parkinson's Education Program. Singularity42 (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As the editor that declined the prod, I am only noting that I did so to encourage a more thorough discussion of the book in light of the "Academic books" subsection at WP:NB which notes that books in highly specialized fields may be notable despite a lack of widespread usage due mostly to the highly specialized nature of the field. This could be a widely-used textbook in its own field, OR it could be entirely unused, but the highly specialized nature of the field means that it may not have widespread presence on the internet. However, I felt the subject warranted a fuller discussion than a PROD would allow in order to vet the book.  I am otherwise entirely Neutral on the matter of the article's deletion as yet. -- Jayron  32  05:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I should add that both books were self-published through AuthorHouse. Singularity42 (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all unless someone has better luck than me in turning up any WP:RS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Apparently a student guide or a pamphlet. No library holdings, not even in worldcat. Self published books need strong sources to show notability.   DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both No basis for an encyclopedia article. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. If Rana and his projects acquire notability at a later time, editors other than coi spas (see Rana AfD talk page) may write encyclopedic articles about them.  — Athaenara  ✉  20:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not demonstrated.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:16, 1 December 2009 (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.