Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Civilization Loop: The End is the Beginning


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Civilization Loop: The End is the Beginning

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This self-published book do not appear to be notable and the two reviews given are not from professionals. A Google search only returns the usual kind of pages: mostly WP clones and advertisement. See th Talk:The Civilization Loop: The End is the Beginning for some remarks by, apparently, the author himself. Goochelaar (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have begun researching your sources you have requested others to look at, such as search, news, books, scholar, and images. Search and images have plenty related to this book. Scholar turns up nothing, but even The Plot to Save Socrates hardly even has a citation, with only books such as the Harry Potter series or Stephen King novels having a large volume of citations. Google books allows self-published authors, like myself (yes, this is my book), to post their own books simply by mailing them a copy, such as Publish America's production Vortex of Revelation which is visible on Google books currently. As far as news, even the Plot to Save Socrates, which you have as an article, does not turn up any results related to the book.

Furthermore, in terms of notability, Wikipedia is not considered a highly notable source for information, specifically because of allowing any user to enter information as they see fit, from any location on Earth. Please see the following article from the New York Times blog about Wikipedia and the Stokke's article: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/who-gets-a-wikipedia-entry/ Lesliejas (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add for Google books, the major stipulation for inclusion is "your books must have ISBNs in order to be included." See the site for yourself: http://books.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=43782 That by definition makes any book represented hardly note worthy if that is all that is required, in addition to sending them a copy.Lesliejas (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I also have found it quite interesting that you refer to the two reviewers of this book as not being professionals. I would like to direct your attention to the following link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional which outlines the definition of what being a professional is all about. I'm sure the reviewers who practice reviewing books at these sites for a living and consider themselves professionals would have something to say about your comment.Lesliejas (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for want of any substantial treatment of this book in reliable independent sources. Fails all criteria of WP:BK. Deor (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete i could find no references to this author or title beyond websites that can be user edited, or blogs, etc. This article will have to wait until its either reprinted by a major publisher, optioned for a movie in production, or gets a groundswell of critical attention that brings it to the attention of more mainstream sources. to the creator: i would like to address your concerns on your talk page, but you can add it here if you want.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage of substance. A coup eof reviews in minor websites, one of which is actually a blog do not establish notability. Note that this would be true regardless of whether the book was self-published or not. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 21 October 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.