Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Block in Harlem


 * 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 as per the concerns raised in this discussion. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Last Block in Harlem

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable book. No third-party reliable sources found. The article's creator appears to be affiliated with the publisher judging by the editor name. bonadea contributions talk 16:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The book was published two months ago and I can't find any reviews or substantial informations on it. We don't have an article for author and quick Google Search reveals, that he isn't notable enough. It looks like a self-promotion. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a real book. The ISBN number is: 978-0-578-02068-6 You can see a copy at: http://www.canalpublishing.com Also, it is available on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Last-Block-Harlem-ebook/dp/B00295S4VQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246984267&sr=8-1 Also, it is currently being sold at St. Mark's Books and Housing Works Bookstore in NYC. — Canalpub (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Yes, I believe that the book is real, but this is not the point here. Try to look here for better understanding the criteria, please.--Vejvančický (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I guess you only take books that were produced in a giant corporate structure. This is a ligit publishing company and a ligit book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC) — Canalpub (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * May I ask you to please read the information provided to you by Vejvančický? Because the link in Vejvančický's comment explains why the article is not acceptable, and that has nothing to do with "giant corporate structures", nor has anybody doubted for a second that the book or the publishing house exist. --bonadea contributions talk 17:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I hear you. Though in order for all of that to happen for a book, you need to go through a major publisher and pay to have your book in stores. I think that with the advent of indi publishing, the rules should change. Why not? I have my book in bookstores, and selling it to the public, have it on Amazon, and trying to make it outside of the corp. world. Check me out. It is ligit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 18:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC) — Canalpub (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Per WP:NBOOK, being sold through a website such as Amazon does not confer notability. A Google search for "'The Last Block in Harlem' book" returns only 257 results, none of which are from reliable sources; searches using Google News and Google Books return no results at all. Also, User:Canalpub has a name very similar to the name of the book's publisher, Canal Publishing, which indicates a conflict of interest.--Unscented (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is my publishing company. What is wrong with that? should I do it under a different name? I have been trying to get listed in Google and cannot. I do not know their formula. It's driving me crazy. If you Google Search Canal Publishing, then I am on the top of the list. Soon, the book will be getting reviews. The post I put about the company and the book are completely objective. Just stating facts. Come on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 20:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not meet notability at present. If it gets written up in the Times or other relevant media, then perhaps it'll be worth an article then; right now, this looks like a promotional effort. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the internet changing what is thought to be "Relevant Media?" After all, the Times and other papers like it are going under because people do not consider them to be news enough to keep purchasing. I hear what you are saying though. This is not a promotional effort. The book is being read and reviews are coming. Give the little guy a shot!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 21:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I own a small publishing venture with seven books to its credit. It doesn't have a Wikipedia article (and has never had one), because it isn't notable. The reason why we can't "give the little guy a shot" is because if we didn't have guidelines like notability, we'd be drowning in millions of articles from people alive to the marketing possibilities of Wikipedia and who see our encyclopaedia as offering free webspace for their promotional material.  Delete.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NBOOK. Gnews shows nothing, Gsearch hits are mostly blogspot or wordpress. An article can be created if the book becomes notable. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete by the creator's own admission this is a very new book, and as such i find it hard to say it is automatically notable. Notable works are those which have generated comment from third-party sources.  Come back in six months and if you managed to generate enough buzz elsewhere it might be appropriate here. --&#65279;ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 22:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I will tell you this. When the title becomes huge, you can be sure that you will remember this thread. I love the open discussion here and the democracy generated by the users. All of you are clamoring for deletion while the book is gaining steam here in New York. Whatever you decide I will abide with. Let me ask, if somebody, one of the people who have read the book wanted to write an article on it, what would you all say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 23:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read "writing my first article" to see how and when to create articles. Subjects of Wikipedia articles will have to meet the general notability guideline and the content of the articles has to be verifiable through reliable sources. When you think these requirements are satisfied, you can recreate the article. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Possibly a speedy delete as G11, entirely promotional--there can be no other purposes than that, for this is not a notable book, not being even in WorldCat at all, nor with any newspaper reviews. When the title becomes huge, and there are good published 3rd party reviews, then someone can write the article.It doesn't particualrly matter who it is--it matters whether there is any evidence of notability.  DGG (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. Therefore, I invite you all to my site: http://www.canalpublishing.com to read the first 3 chapters of the book for yourself. Perhaps you will like it, order a copy for yourself, and then write a review? There are a few reviews coming out in the next few weeks, so I will wait and let the web take its natural course. Please feel free to keep this thread going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 04:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Delete, non-notable book. That's it. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 13 July 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.