Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y = Arctg X: The Hyperbola of the World Order


 * 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. I'll leave it to somebody else to clean up the incoming links. Fortunately, it looks like what links here works even on deleted pages, so that should help a little. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Y &

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources found that discuss this book, all the sources in the article predate its publication and are used to support what seems to be the book's argument. Book was published by "University Press of America", Google searches raise blog/message board allegations that this is a "quasi-vanity" press, but I cannot verify this.Geogene (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom. This newspaper article (Westword) calls University Press of America (UPA) a quasi-vanity press and then later concludes it is a vanity press. "The firm's acquisitions editor, Michelle Harris, describes UPA as an "academic publisher" but notes that the company is not affiliated with a university. UPA agreed to print and distribute 700 copies of the book in paperback after Denver's Hue-Man Experience Bookstore, which specializes in African-American literature, agreed to buy 500 of them. Harris insists that UPA is "not a vanity press." But Dick Rowson, publishing consultant to the American University Press in Washington, D.C., who is familiar with UPA, says book contracts that require prepublication orders are "in effect...a vanity form of publishing."Tucker says UPA gets to keep all proceeds from sales of the first edition of the book, but she will earn a small royalty if there is a second printing." Sounds like a vanity press to me. So a vanity published book and no sources discussing it. PermStrump (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- The whole thing has the feel of a fringe theory to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Preserve -- Some 50 other pages link to this page, resulting in traffic of over 40 views per day. Deletion would cause numerous disruptions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.137.8 (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to remove all of those myself, if necessary. Geogene (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. Notability comes in time, usually posthumously. One day the book will make a comeback to Wikipedia. I copied this page for my autobiography. Max. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxaxax (talk • contribs) 00:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Article has COI issues, seems promotional/fringe. Baking Soda (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Baking Soda (talk) 20:42, 14 April 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.