Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BICs 4 Derivatives

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. MBisanz ^talk 13:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BICs 4 Derivatives

Non-notable book; it may be that the claims made in the book are admissable, but the book itself has received little if any independent attention. Rcawsey (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This book is part of a marketing campaign using Wikipedia as a free web host; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basis Instrument Contract. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional article of a non-notable book. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED DELETION: Qualifying the book as non notable is personal and subjective opinion that is hard to justify. In view of the recent crisis, this book has become particularly relevant for the issues at the root of the crisis as well as the prescription to address it. The credibility of the book is independently sourced and properly referenced using the WIPO website at http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2003107137. the World Intellectual Property Organization is the most authoritative body in the world on intellectual property matters. A review of the International Preliminary Examination report issued Oct 1, 2004 in the documents tab associated with the patent publication WO2003107137 show that all 273 claims made in the application are found admissible as New, involve an Inventive Step and are Industrially Applicable.

It is not a "marketing campaign" but a mere recitation of independently sourced material of the highest credibility Bics (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bics (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Obvious PR and no notability established via third-party sources at all. §FreeRangeFrog 17:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do not delete

in addition to all the info I provided above i just typed google on BICs 4 Derivatives which gave me 89,800 hits including articles from FITCH an industry leader and mathematica. how do you guys define notability by the way? Bics (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got 26 hits typing "BICs 4 Derivatives" on Google. . . Rcawsey (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable and self-promotional, and I'd ask the author to please stop posting multiple "do not delete" votes. We know your position. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the author's information, here is where we define notability, for books anyway. I do not see any claim to notability in the article, and see no evidence that the book is notable by the criteria I have cited. Clear delete candidate. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - blatant spam; has tried this before, too. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) as more spam. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basis Instrument Contract. MuZemike 23:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A PR piece written by a user with a conflict of interest, spam (perhaps G11), no notability. — neuro^(talk) 13:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't tell what this article is about. It's about a book about something. What is that "something"? I don't know. It says something about a patent. What was the invention? It doesn't say. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2009 (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.