Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Third World; Country or People?


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Third World; Country or People?

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non WP:notable book. I can't find any reliable sources with significant coverage.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do not see any reviews in Google Scholar, nor on the wider web for that matter. Publisher seems fishy, I can't find much about them - and they are not Titan Books, I think. Seems like advert of sorts, i.e. spam. No encyclopedic value. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Absolutely no reliable sources reviewing, or even mentioning, this book. WorldCat shows zero library holdings. Amazon has no listing for it. The publisher does not appear to exist; the only Google hits are false positives, and a reverse image search for the logo provided at the Google Books entry returns no hits. I was able to locate what I believe to be a pdf of the first few pages of the book (front cover to table of contents) and the colophon included no actual information about the publisher whatsoever. I strongly suspect this was self-published. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It also looks like there's an undisclosed COI here, given that there are multiple places that link the author and editor names as the same person. There was even a Lulu author page that stated this as well. The article had a mild promotional tone to it (not enough to warrant speedying it, but enough to notice) but this makes it seem that much more promotional. It's why editing with an undisclosed COI is such a bad idea because even if the lack of disclosure is unintentional, it can cast a bad light on edits. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And it's almost as good as self published, as this states that he's also the founder of Titan, Inc. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's nothing out there to show that this book is notable enough for an entry. A search in my university's academic databases produced nothing, nor did a Google search. I did, however, find evidence that shows that there is an undisclosed COI here and that the book was published through a company that the author founded himself. Neither of these two things are issues that would necessarily make a book non-notable, but in this case it does seem to make it less likely that coverage does not exist, as it's never really a heartening sign when an author has to not only publish their own book, but write their own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tokyogirl79's findings. Self-published, non-notable work, totally fails WP:NBOOK. - Brianhe (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2016 (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.