Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five O'clock Dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Five O'clock Dog

Delete. This article is ruthless self-promotion, of the kind that insists on inserting statements about registered trademarks, spamming editors who remove it and on blanking copyright questions when they are raised. This so-called book has no sales rank on Amazon, even though it has an ISBN, and the Copac, a union of the British Library with various UK university libraries have never heard of its ISBN [1], and nor has the Library of Congress [2]. That Amazon has an entry for it is simply because they will carry absolutely anything, whether it is vanity press or seminal text. Note also, that the website says "Stay tuned because the viral story known only as Five O’clock Dog is going Live" — plainly they are using Wikipedia to begin this. This material is vanity, promotion, unverifiable, crystal-balling and unacceptable on Wikipedia. -Splashtalk 01:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I stripped out the clear vanispamvertisement stuff. I checked the Google links, and came up with a bunch of links to a "branding/marketing" firm called "Global Branding." This appears to be part of an Astroturfing/viral marketing campaign and should be deleted ASAP. FCYTravis 01:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Splash and FCYTravis, good job sniffing Five O Clock Dog out. Ruby 02:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be using WP for marketing campaign.--FloNight 03:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are no copyright questions concerning Five O'clock Dog. The book is copy written and Five O'clock Dog is a protected registered trademark.

All of the "Delete" users have violated many of the conditions for deletion. They are all recomending "delete" without a legal foundation, they have not contacted the Wikipedia foundation to ask for guidance from the designated/official Wikipedia IP attorney prior to recomending deletion. This is a childrens book stub. Everything on the Five O'clock Dog website is part of the story in the book and is relevent material. Are all childrens book stubs ruthless self promotion . . ?, is an admin or editors bio on their main user page "ruthless self-promotion" as they look for a higher paying job? or ask others to check out what great acomplishments they have made in their lives, hey just check out my bio on Wikipedia (Its not ruthless self-promotion - I promise). Are all the porno links and pics on Wikipedia ruthless self-promotion? The official rules of deletion ( if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted.) In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete.) Did any "delete" folks follow this procedure. NO. Is there anyone else who wants to risk their Wikipedia credibility and just jump on the "delete" side without a Specific legal or factual reason for deletion. If all the "delete" folks want to invite a million people to talk about a children’s book stub, we are hereby not liable for any enticement of defamation or slander. We are also not reponsible for increased or decreased sales because of it. - The Publisher of Five O'clock Dog -20 january 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.32.71 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 21 January 2006

    • I would recommend you visit the Wikipedia:No legal threats page. If you make legal threats, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely. There have been no "repeated nominations" of this article - this is the first. There is a specific reason for deletion - the article is about a book which has not been published or sold or reviewed, and is potentially the subject of a viral marketing campaign to promote the book, a clear violation of what Wikipedia is not. FCYTravis 06:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to SPEEDY DELETE after legal threat from Mr. 5pm Dog Ruby 05:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll jump in here and vote 'delete and will block the above user for his legal threat. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per section 503 of the criminal code // paroxysm (n) 05:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, with user's behavior not helping matters either. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. By definition, a not-yet-published book will not have 5000 sales per WP:BIO. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The book's existence does appear to be verifiable, as there was a booth listed at the National Book Expo in 2005, promoted by one Ernest Sjo - however, that's the extent of the information available on the Internet about this title. FCYTravis 06:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment I found listed as Young Adult 200 page book? [3] Confusing since most young childrens books aren't 200 pp.--FloNight 15:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - 'Clearly no legal threats have been made or implied.' A statement of non liability

applied to any possible damaging comments by Wikipedia Admin and users is not a threat. Any PHD's in international intellectual property rights want to weigh in on what an actual threat is? Will the users that have claimed a legal threat was made state their Names and legal qualifications for doing so, as well as the detailed foundation of making one. Please also address your caution under the Wikipedia guidelines for making a false statement and a detailed description of your haste to block another user. 20 January 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.160.82 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 21 January 2006

Threatening AfD voters with an application of libel and slander laws to statements made on Wikipedia is a clear legal threat. Now, I suggest that you make an argument as to why this article should be kept, or else it will most likely be deleted. FCYTravis 08:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Astrokey44|talk 09:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and shoot the dog! Sheesh! Eddie.willers 14:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I want to risk my Wikipedia credibility and just jump on the delete side without a specific legal or factual reason for deletion. AndyJones 16:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I want to risk my Wikipedia credibility and just jump on the delete side without a specific legal or factual reason for deletion. -- Dragonfiend 18:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article itself is barely credible, but following the reaction it seems necessary to underscore the seriousness with which Wiki users take the content of this project. Of little note or worth. doktorb | words 18:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I love how you guys JUMP to conclusions without really reading to understand nor to proper research on the matter. Kmac1036 19:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • No research? We did more research to figure out what the article was than the article's creator did to write the article. FCYTravis 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Advertising on Wikipedia is now protected by intellectual property rights? If I vote Delete you will 'sue me for libel and slander'? Yeah, that'll be a short case. Advertise your "book" somewhere else. User:Tokakeke 21:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete edit time and article content fits with a series of hoaxes I'm cleaning up at the moment from a sock farm including Paulo Fontaine (talk · contribs). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if it exists, it does not appear to be a notable book. Cedars 12:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a vanity book perhaps? no verification, anyway. Ziggurat 20:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and vaccinate against Wikivirus. And sanction all rules-lawyering Wikimunchkins. Haikupoet 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vaporware book at best, more likely painfully non-notable. Credit to Zoe for the quick action on the WP:NLT violation. Stifle 23:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Five O’clock Dog - Five O’clock Dog Book
  • Qualification Statement:

Upon further investigation we have come to realize that there is a very large amount of commercial fee based porn sites and other commercial services listed on Wikipedia. These pages inside Wikipedia were created and are maintained by Wikipedians as an advertisement that have direct links to the “pay a fee – buy some porn access or DVD’s - join here ” porn industry websites. (To many easy to find examples to list here)

  • Further Qualification:

Our Position from the beginning has been:

These aforementioned web sites are selling commercial products. The Wikipedia page for them is an informational advertisement. Large numbers of the pages contain trademarks as a site designation and heading. Many digital images on the Wikipedia website contain the ® after the Trademark. (This is just one example of many - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Intel-logo.svg)

We are Neutral regarding all maters related to this. We are not singling out one industry, only using the above as a typical example.

  • Summary:

Wikipedians are in the process of deleting a children’s book page. (Stub) We assumed that since we did not see an 18 or over sign on the Wikipedia front page that Wikipedia is for all ages.

At last check there was 100% voting in favor of deleting the Five O’clock Dog Book stub page. (Article) (18 Wikipedians )

We feel that we have been singled out in a very discriminatory fashion. Further, we feel that deleting the Five O’clock Dog book stub is hypocritical.

The Publisher of Five O’clock Dog - Monday, January 23, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.160.82 (talk • contribs)

I have an email adrdess for Britannica here, you should complain to them because they're not covering it either. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You have got to be kidding me! Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the book comes out and shatter sales records or wins a Newbery Medal then it might need an article. --Wrathchild (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - As soon as the book is actually published by a reputable publishing house (read, not vanity press) and sells more than 5,000 copies, we will be quite happy to have an article about it, per WP:BIO. We will not put a link to purchase the book on Amazon, nor will we put "this name is a registered trademark" all over the article. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise things. FCYTravis 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per above --kingboyk 22:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I very rarely vote to delete, but the publisher's comments here are simply unacceptable. I suggest they not attempt legal threats while not understanding that Wikipedia is no more obligated to carry their content than bookstores are to carry their book. Deletion is not "discriminatory", and the publisher should understand that even if Wikipedia were to be massively, unfairly discriminatory in its deletion policies, there would still be no grounds for any legal action. That said, I urge people nominating and voting on AFD to be carefully uninsulting to the subjects and authors of articles up until the point where they say things like what this publisher has said above. -- Jake 23:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very strong delete because of bad faith - the user that originally posted this article today sent me a rather long email that attacked my personal character rather than my actions as an administrator: I was the first person on Wikipedia to question this user over the content of this article. Nothing in their actions convinces me that this is nothing more than ruthless self promotion by a non-notable individual: if they were genuine I am sure their actions towards me and other users would have been much more above reproach. -- Francs2000 01:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I also received a very large email. It was rather non-sequitor. It seemed it was a response to what someone else had said. —Wrathchild (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It's probably the same as the one I received, though mine had additions to the end that were little more than personal attacks against me as a person. I believe the person quoted may have been Jimbo, I have sent a copy of the email to him and asked him to confirm. -- Francs2000 01:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


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.