Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Eclectic Chauvinist

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. Deizio talk 11:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Eclectic Chauvinist

Delete. ^{[Check Google hits]} Only 7 Google hits, and Amazon Sales Rank of 1m+. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 02:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: No indication of notability (vanity presses do not qualify). Hu 03:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carcharoth 11:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable possible spam  Funky Monkey  (talk)  21:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I think is acceptable. Not a vanity press, more than 7 Google results.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.109.193.99 (talk • contribs).
• Keep i'm not apposed to keeping this page. User:Jackson Carver2 8:02, 9 October 2006 — Possible single purpose account: Jackson Carver2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Note: User's only edits are to this page. --Storkk 13:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. --Storkk 13:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Book has received good reviews. Not notable but neither is a lot of other Wiki articles User:Samuel Higginson 8:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Samuel Higginson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Comment. Please let us know what those other articles are, and we'll put them up for deletion too. ... discospinster _talk 14:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I mean, it's a book, maybe not a well-known one but isnt wikipedia good because it has entries on almost everything. User:Rockrock — Possible single purpose account: Rockrock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep Even though it might not be notable, cover design indicates that it is not a vanity press. User:Samuel Higginson 5:17, 9 October 2006
  • A cover design indicates whether someone designed your cover. It cannot indicate anything about whether the book is from a vanity press. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There's a link to Amazon on this article. Is that appropriate? Other than that, I think it should stay. --Jackson Carver2 22:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment All three above keep opinions are from single purpose accounts. Pascal.Tesson 23:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, "Sam Higginson" wrote "keep" twice. Hu 23:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So did "Jackson Carver2". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet WP:BK (proposed guideline, feel free to comment!). Pascal.Tesson 23:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability has been shown. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No independant review of book, very low ranking on Amazon, very low visibility, not notable. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 03:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no indication of meeting the proposed WP:BK. Sandstein 07:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment It is my belief that this article is appropriate. It is not fully finished yet. Nothing in it is controversial. As far as meeting the proposed WP:BK, the book does have an ISBN, is available among other places at Books-a-Million and Barnes and Noble, and is regarded as literary fiction. I do not know if the Library of Congress has it; is there a way to search the library online?--12.109.193.99 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Response. I plugged the ISBN given into the LoC on-line search and it did not come up with anything. ... discospinster _talk 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment There is a quote from the PublishAmerica website saying that they are not in any way a vanity press or self-publisher.link. Vanity press authors pay; PublishAmerica authors get paid. --12.109.193.99 18:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Response. You probably shouldn't use PublishAmerica's reputation as an argument to keep the article. ... discospinster _talk 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: The 12.109.193.99 IP address user deleted referenced information from the PublishAmerica article (since reverted). I think that the continuing and extensive efforts made on Wikipedia by single-purpose editor(s) are evidence of the book's non-notability. If it was notable nobody would need to attempt to prop it up by such an extraordinary campaign. Hu 19:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I deleted the referenced material because I saw the notice "do not copy text from other websites without permission". Instead I linked to their site. I am sorry if my "campaign" is such a big deal. I did not mean it to expand to such large proportions. --12.109.193.99 20:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the quote here that you changed to a reference, I was referring to the whole paragraph on the PublishAmerica article that you deleted in an attempt to hide negative information about PublishAmerica without explanation or summary. All your underhanded tactics make everything you have written, including your book, suspect. Hu 22:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is the edit which Hu is referring to. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Response When I checked on the sales rank on Amazon it was 64,000. --12.109.193.99 20:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I cleared the article of content and I think that it should be permanently deleted. Wasn't sure about what Hu said about the IP person's having wrote the book. ??? --Imity 23:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Imity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Note: Now we have the spectacle of 12.109.193.99 (talk) deleting attributions, and then showing up as this new "Imity", since it was 12.109.193.99 who blanked the book page. However, Imity pretends not to be the "IP person". Hu 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Just published, no evidence of notability. Isomorphic 23:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agree that article should be deleted. Even if Imity is the "IP person", I think that Hu shouldn't have accused him of being the author. --UserSevenSeven 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC) -- — Possible single purpose account: UserSevenSeven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Note: It's all of a piece, a grand windup. Follow the trail and you can see who is who. 12.109.193.99 formerly voted "keep" (unattributed) then made some other comments here, then tries to delete the attributions on those comments (since reverted), then votes "delete". UserSevenSeven has made a solo edit, above. It amuses me to track this nonsense for a while, but I may get bored of it at any moment. Hu 00:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment get bored? --Hirokimoko Tachiri 00:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC) -- — Possible single purpose account: Hirokimoko Tachiri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Delete The "grand windup" has ceased. --Hu Is it 01:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: Hu Is it (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Delete. Non-notable. The creators of non-notable articles should not be allowed to decide what is allowed on Wikipedia. THL 07:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete as Non-notable. The book ranks in the 400 thousandsth on Amazon.com and has no ranking on Amazon.uk Ohconfucius 02:52, 13 October 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.