Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book of Pure Logic

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 speedy (deleted outside of AFD). article speedy deleted while discussion was in progress. tedder (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Pure Logic

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable self-published book. Wikipedia is not a webhost where you can publish your own research. For this book to have an article, it must meet the notability guidelines - see Wikipedia:Notability (books). Also WP:FORUM, WP:NOTWEBSPACE, WP:COI. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Barte (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find a shred of coverage in any third-party sources that would allow this to be considered a notable book. Looks more like an individual's try to use Wikipedia to push their POV. So Why 15:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being published by a vanity press doesn't come close to meeting WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines. The COI doesn't help. tedder (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete attempt by the author to use Wikipedia to promote the book. The only significant coverage I can find (apart from Amazon reviews) is [1], which appears to be a site where you can pay to get someone to review your books for you. Fails all notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 15:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question - If the article is deleted, should User:Forever true/Pure Logic also be deleted as a contravention of WP:NOTWEBSPACE? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And User:Forever true/Book of Pure Logic. But a userspace draft has much weaker guidelines, it could be argued that's a userfied version, especially if the author continues to work on it. tedder (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MFD is the place for evaluating whether user pages should be deleted. The author has linked to the userfied version from his personal website so he arguably is just using it as his personal web space, and there's no prospect of an encyclopedic article being written about this subject, so it may well get deleted there. Hut 8.5 16:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is an obviously non-notable and unlikely-to-be-notable work of non-orthodox opinion. After AFD closes, the userspace version can be deleted via MFD as a WP:FAKEARTICLE; I can take care of the nom if no one beats me to it. --RL0919 (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK (I don't think it satisfies any criteria for notability), and unhelpful as promotion by the self-publisher. The fake articles in user space should be handled at WP:MFD. 23:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete - self published, non notable. Even the Amazon listing for the book is a mess. Seaphoto^Talk 04:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...can we snow delete? clarification, I know we can't, i'm just trying to express how clear it is that this needs to go I've offered the user some help on xyr talk page, but I don't think the message is getting through....Qwyrxian (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - spectacularly fails WP:NBOOK and probably speediable per G11, end of story. ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - now tagged (by me) for G11 speedy. – ukexpat (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.