Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Only as Life

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Only as Life

Suspected vanispamicruftisement. Article creator has added notes in other articles suggesting that this is the longest poem in the world (it's less than a tenth of the length of the world's longest poem). No assertion of notability. No notability. Vizjim 16:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 09:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• SPEEDY DELETE per nom-Vanity JoshTyler 15:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC) . Josh.
  • Comment - You really need to stop speedying things that don't qualify. Please read the messages on your talk page. -bobby 16:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. As it presently reads, the article merely asserts that the poem is the longest by this poet. But um...so? I don't see anything at all notable in the wikipedia sense about this work. All we really have here is a slightly-annotated bibliographic entry of a non-notable creative work. The poet himself, Nikhil Parekh has a wiki page that isn't exactly over-crowded that could easily accomodate info about his various works, and thus those entries wouldn't need to meet WP notability criteria themselves. No reason to spread tiny tidbits across many sparse pages. DMacks 16:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unverified, notability not asserted, --SunStar Net 16:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• O! fulsome sarabands of the Stygian cosmos, Delete this darkling funicular of Cattarhyptine phlogiston. Auto movil 16:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no indication that this poem has any notability. NawlinWiki 16:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 17:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Arma virumque cano for much longer than this. Delete. Fails to support any notability. Fan-1967 19:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but in its defense, it might be subjectively the longest poem ever composed. Auto movil 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, this has to be the world's longest poem by a poet, individually written. More so, it doesnt contain any elements of stage/drama/theater or any dramatical presentations, unlike many other long poems, which are merely stories or dramas or plays written in poetic form. This should stay as world's longest individual poem, by an individual award winning poet..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolkeg908 (talk • contribs) — Coolkeg908 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • That's not exactly what I meant, although I hesitate to clarify. Auto movil 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
        • After reading a few dozen verses I feel I know exactly what you meant. Fan-1967 19:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong KeepThis is what I meant exactly. This poem by Nikhil Parekh is the longest ever originally written in the English Language and with tremendous authority and command over the language. It is virtually seen everywhere on the internet and appears in countless internet search results of countless search engines. It has been written with great originality and panache and demonstrates the sheer genius of the poet. It would be really pathetic to delete this and a great loss for the English Language poetry. I see no reason to delete. I havent seen a poem longer than this one, which is so originally pure in English and which doesnt contain any elements of Drama, Theater--or for that matter isnt a theaterical representation in a poetic form. This one's pure poetry from the heart of the poet, not a novel or a story written in the form of a poem with elements and dramatic characters in it. This one for me is an irrefutable keep.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolkeg908 (talk • contribs)

On talk pages and in discussions, please sign your posts by typing four tilde's (~~~~) at the end of your entry. It will translate to your user name with the date and time.

• • A Clock stopped/Not the Mantel's/Geneva's farthest skill/Can't put the puppet bowing/That just now dangled still. -Emily Dickinson Auto movil 20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• If you're comparing these poems by Dickinson with Parekh's longest poem, then they stand or come nowhere near. His longest poem is far far long and the only of its kind written in modern English, which is the longest in the world. I havent come across any other poem in comparison to his which is as long and written originally in modern english, pure poetry, and that too individually. His longest poem rules, as far as the English language in its most original form is considered.Coolkeg908 04:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I hate to be the one to ask this, but are you the same person as Parekh? Such things happen all too frequently. I must insist that this is a simple question, easily answered. Auto movil 06:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Now this is really funny. Mr. Parekh musnt even be knowing what's happening here. From the looks of his biography here at Wiki, he is world famous and doesnt have the time to fall into such arguments. Whether a page of his remains here at Wiki or not, how does it matter to him. There are several by his name here and all across the world at countless places. And to further clarify your raised objection, well let me have a roar first, no , am in noway Parekh. Yes, but I have read his works and researched a lot on him on the internet like I do for several others. And I for one, havent seen a poem as long as his in the world, having gone through millions of other web pages. Hope this answers your rather silly query. Also, I would implore you to stick to the subject and not raise such objectionably silly queries here in discussion. I would also like to point Wiki's attention to your absurb objection, which is quite offending to a fellow Wiki editor such as me. Coolkeg908 08:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a quite valid question in my opinion based on the pattern of your behavior here...symptoms of being a single-purpose account (as mentioned previously) and seemingly emotional attachment and intimate relation to the subject matter (poem and poet). Nobody's saying you are this other guy, but, as already noted, others have tried to play that game here. That is highly offensive to all editors and the way WP works, so a quick question of someone who has some appearances of that seems reasonable. DMacks 09:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • We've established that the poem is long. Anyone can go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. It seems in your arguments, the length makes it inherently Notable. That opinion is not necessarily shared. Fan-1967 14:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, people can go on and on and on and on, endlessly. But then it should make sense. It should be articulately synchronized. It should be in poetic verse. It should be having/possessing some qualities atleast which distinguish it to be a poem. And this one by Parekh has it all. Its not just inundating the whole page with various combinations of words from the dictionary, from the first word to the last. That way, anyone could keep writing and writing and writing, without a break, and soon surpass Parekh's long poem too. But then its not a poem. Its virtual balderdash. Whilst this one by Parekh is a true poem written with great authority in the English language. It has a moral, a message and is poetically synthesized from the first to the last line. For me it should stay as I've said earlier, as its one of the most significantly written longest poems of the modern english language with great authority by a world class poet.Coolkeg908 15:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • "Significance", like "quality", is a judgement term, a matter of opinion. We don't do those. Neither amounts to (or is even related to) Wikipedia's standard of Notability. -- Fan-1967 15:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No indication of notability as a poem, and we should have a look at that author, too. Oh, and the poem? It's hilariously bad. Read it. Sandstein 18:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it raises important questions concerning the subaltern role of adjectives in the so-called greater Western poetic tradition. Auto movil 19:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see somebody has taken care of it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikhil Parekh. Sandstein 18:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- I'm starting to lose good faith, and THAT was cringeworthy to read. Delete it fast, delete it hard, and protect the page so we don't have to hurt our eyes like that. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 20:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 23:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 09:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, it seems the field is shrinking, not longest poem, but longest poem of X language, in modern dialogue etc. there is a point where notability is lost. --NuclearZer0 20:03, 3 November 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.