Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Place


 * 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. King of ♥   ♦   ♣   ♠  22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Great Place
Non-notable book from PublishAmerica (by Ugonna Wachuku on AfD above)
 * Delete as per my nom.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  01:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The book has not won any awards, nor has it been mentioned in any notable publications. Any notability the author may have does not automatically make the book itself notable. Also, the article reads like an ad. --Coredesat 02:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have expanded my reasons for deletion, after getting a message about this on my talk page. --Coredesat 11:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is another case of User:Dlyons493 and Coredesat not being object in nominating articles for deletion at will. That a book is a "Non-notable" book as User:Dlyons493 said does not mean that it violates any of the Wikipedia principles and rules; including the three cardinal content policies: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research, and the copyright policy (Copyrights). The Great Place by Ugonna Wachuku is out there and can be bought.

The author spent years of research and toil writing The Great Place. So, I'd advise Coredesat and User:Dlyons493 to buy a copy of the book and read for themselves before they start referring to it as a "Non-notable" book. This article should not be deleted. I therefore humbly call for the removal of deletion notices on both the Ugonna Wachuku article and The Great Place article. Please, let us not just nominate articles for deletion without being objective and realistic in our views. Thank you and GOD bless you all abundantly with wisdom. (Lord777 11:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC))


 * Delete Vanity-press book. See also author's AfD above. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not Delete Objectivity counts here in terms of Wikipedia policy, Andrew Lenahan. What are these "severe verifiability problems" according to you. The United States Diplomatic Mission to South Africa: http://pretoria.usembassy.gov/wwwhpao.html even has The Great Place in their library for South Africans - if you care to search or to telephone them. (Lord777 12:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC))
 * Delete. I'm going to address notability rather than the article's content or tone, which should (and must) be cleaned up if the article survives this AfD. This book described by this article does not seem to be sufficiently notable, per the note on notability criteria in the book guidelines. It was published through PublishAmerica, a vanity-press-style publisher; unfortunately, PublishAmerica does not seem to give out sales figures for its books; however, its single all-time-best-seller only sold 5,200 copies, indicating a much smaller figure for this book. Books from this publisher are printed only on-demand and are "sold" to libraries or bookstores (ie, as consignment model) by the authors themselves, apparently without upfront printing of any kind. This virtually ensures only the most minimal sort of distribution for books from this publisher. Certainly, libraries retain many new books they are given, and many authors from vanity presses donate their books to libraries, particularly those which the author feels the book has a particular connection to (say, the library of the US Diplomatic Mission to South Africa). However, you would have an extremely difficult time finding this book on a shelf in a physical bookstore, or being purchased by a major library for addition to its collection. The basic rule for a book's notability, as cited here, is "reasonably spread or otherwise well-known or remarkable". This book has no Amazon.com sales ranking , and I can't find a single major periodical's review of this book. Considering these factors in conjunction with its vanity-press status, I am forced to say that it's almost certainly neither "reasonably spread" nor "well-known". When it is published by a major publisher with a distribution system that is not "on-demand," and when several reviews of it appear in major periodicals, then it may be notable. I recommend deletion without prejudice on the grounds of nonnotability. Best, Docether 18:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. -- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 20:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Concur with Docether; non-notable book from well-known vanity press, doesn't have sales rank at Amazon. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:43, 23 June 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.