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. T. Canens (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Chinese Macroeconomy[edit]

Analysis of Chinese Macroeconomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is an allegedly important book written by an author for whom we apparently have no article, published by XLibris (misleading, since this is actually a translation sold through the print-on-demand house, not the original). The article lacks context other than a bald statement that it's a textbook. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looks like the article is mainly a work of self promotion. A longer version of the article exists here. For reference, an article about the author was deleted, see discussion. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for a supposedly notable book written 7 years ago, their is not a single reference to the book on the news, newspaper, highbeam or jstor searches, except for one showing that the book exists. Books, similarly shows that it exists, but that's all. Scholar shows that it received 2-3 brief mentions. Hardly notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:48, 18 August 2015 (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.