Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apples & Ampalaya

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. Owen× ☎ 21:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apples & Ampalaya[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The article gives no indication, and I have found none by searches, that this book meets the notability standard of WP:Notability (books). JohnCD (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the article makes no claim to notability and does not appear to have reviews available, Sadads (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable book. Moray An Par (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject of article does not appear to meet notability requirements for inclusion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find sources that could support notability. Besides, it has an Amazon Bestsellers Rank of #5,639,045. [1]. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the wikipedia servers are short of storage space and information about books has to be deleted. If you owned the book and if you were interested in Philippine history you might not be so ready to delete it. But Wikipedia is run by people who are very bossy, selective and restrictive about freedom of information.

The Reason it is so low on the Amazon list is because it is not published by a mainstream Publisher and distributed by a mainstread publisher worldwide. It is published in the Philippines, and as far as I'm aware, can only be sourced there. Therefore without proper advertising, thousands of people, who would otherwise be interested, are not aware of the book.

Go ahead and delete it if it will make you any happier.

Wikipedia imposes its own censorship and restriction of information on itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nostradamus1566 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do read the notability guidelines and understand that "it is very interesting" is not a criterion for inclusion. Wikipedia is not trying to be the encyclopedia about everything although one may argue that the "sum of all human knowledge" (what Wikipedia tries to be according to its founder) is indeed everything. In simple terms, one wouldn't want articles about every single person in the world written. That's simply absurd. The same case applies here. For that very reason, Wikipedia has to have guidelines for inclusion. Unless you can present reliable third-party sources that indicate that this book is notable, we can't have it here. Articles created here are not meant for advertising. And yes, making Wikipedia cleaner and better does make us happier, and I wish it also does it to you. I invite you to help us in these goals. Moray An Par (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:09, 13 May 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.