Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry

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. postdlf (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry

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

I believe this WP:VANITY-press published book fails WP:BK rather plainly. Not notable outside of WP:FRINGE circles. jps (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. I don't see any reviews, and the article has none listed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is borderline promotional in how it's written, but it looks like it would just narrowly squeak by a speedy via that outlet. In any case, I can't find anything to show that this book is ultimately notable enough for an entry. I would say redirect to the author, but there are many of them- making it impossible to decide which one is the more feasible redirect target. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. This article looks more like a table of contents than an encyclopedic entry. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable and written as an originally researched promo. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per reasons outlined above. Finnegas (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a cut'n'paste from some amateur X-Files. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article about this book's author Richard Thieme may be in violation of the policies concerning biographies of living persons: WP:BLP, specifically notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is snowing outside and online. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book was reviewed in a collegiate library review journal, Feb 2013, Vol 50, No.06. The book received a positive recommendation and amongst the comments was, "A Useful Resource of the study of a controversial topic." This is a history book and not an X-File book. It is not unusual for history books within Wikipedia to have brief descriptions of their chapters listed. This was done in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, The Twelve Caesars, and The Communist Manifesto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.59.173 (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

70.113.59.173, according to your edit log, you created this article in a sandbox with the username "Rpowell2u". If you are the co-author of the book with the same first initial and last name, I suggest you might read our guidelines regarding Conflict of Interest, thanks. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2013 (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.