Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninth Day of Creation

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. I'm calling it 5-3 in favor of Deletion, which in my judgement is not consensus. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ninth Day of Creation

Vanity page for book

• Delete per nomination. - Daemon8666 20:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This one is close for me, but I don't think its notable enough (yet). A web search turns up about 500 hits [1], its Amazon sales rank is 206,000+ [2], and it has no google news results. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteI think this is inappropriate for wikipedia. If this sort of shameless self-promotion disguised as information isn't nipped severely and immediately in the bud, the wikipedia will be about as informative as FOX news.
• Don't Delete- It gives a good plot summary of the book
• Don't Delete- It gives a good idea of the what the book is all about more so that it inferences a historical event of world history, sanitized the article so that it doesn't do any promotional thing. - xmagix (10-7-05)

• Do not delete - state run internet police should not be allowed to censor free societies media. There is nothing wrong with the posting it is accurate and informative. This is cutting edge SF topic with the combination of both emerging economic shifts and biotech advancements. It is deserving of its placement not because of its demand but because of its relevancy, no different than the copy of "The Coming Plague by Laurie Garrett" has a place in the public library though it has only been signed out once. It is precisely this kind of self promotion that makes WIKI so powerful. Detailed essays criticizing the book can be posted and linked. Thus creating a much more informative reading choice than you would get by simply browsing to Amazon or even the public Library. Again large state run internet police organizations, posing as students, should not be allowed to censor or even make suggestions as to what is or is not appropriate material for WIKI. (preceding unsigned comment by Gmeek (talk · contribs) )

• Do not delete -- the 1918 flu pandemic needs to be remembered, before it is repeated. Very topical with the threat of new bird flus crossing over and is being linked to from news sites already. Attention to this issue may help focus research dollars in the near future.

• Delete. And remind people that keep votes from no-contribution anons should be deleted as well. Bushytails 06:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's an informative and legitimate article on the book, therefore there is absolutely no reason to delete the page whatsoever. -- OldRight 11:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear vanity, probably written by Leonard Crane, the book's author. Quale 23:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, Connection Books, the publisher, seems to have published only this single novel and no other books at all. This seems suspiciously like a vanity publisher as well. Quale 23:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Totally a vanity page, or otherwise a desperate marketing effort by the book's publishers/author Bwithh 23:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are various descriptions of books in this encyclopedia and this one is very detailed, which is the reason it especially should stay. -- Radicalsubversiv2 03:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The accusation that this article is a vanity page is one of the silliest things I've ever read. As mentioned above, there are many book description in Wikipedia. -- AndrewBartlett 17:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - My argument is not that no book articles belong on Wikipedia, or that all book articles on here are vanity. This particular article is the only target of my ire at all, particularly for the reasons that it is a NON-NOTABLE book, by a NON-NOTABLE publisher, and the user who created it decided to link from articles with scientific validity to this non-notable work of Fiction

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.