Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pajoolr

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 Speedy delete. enochlau (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pajoolr

Incoherent nonsensical story (Pajoolr (Also known was "Lord Pajoolr" or "The Allmighty Pajoolr") is the name of the God and King of all things, according to Lord Aegis and Lord Draconis, the two eletust muvafukas dat ever wolkd d oif). Speedy tag removed, so I'm bringing it here for clarity (sorry). Delete or speedy delete. bikeable (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between posting something such as this, as opposed to "SNK Boss Syndrome"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Merchant (talk • contribs)

This page was created by my best friend and I to shed some background light onto a character that we have created and written several stories about, a few of which are going to be published in 2007. We are a pair of British Humor writers from Oxford, England.

We don't mean to be pests, but we do feel that we have the freedom to place information on our characters here. Won't it be handy, once the stories are published, to have this page? Perhaps it seems like nonsense, but then again, I'm sure Harry Potter did too, at first. We would be very grateful if you were leave our page be. We don't mind perhaps editing it a bit, but we'd like to keep it as-is.

Cheers mates.

Also, please note, it was not "made up in school one day". We are both professional authors by trade.

  • Speedy delete. You do not have the freedom to place information here - everything here is by the grace and favour of the Wikipedia community, and I think you will see its opinions very clearly here. -- RHaworth 03:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This type of page is not why Wikipedia exists. There are guidelines for encyclopedic articles. It fails WP:WEB (ZERO Google results), and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (as this is claimed to be "yet-to-be" released material). The comment above also tends toward WP:VSCA, as you have a vested interest in the article, and because you are effectively using it to advertise your "yet-to-be published" book. Further, you have also lowered your credibility by repeatedly ignoring requests to stop vandalizing and deleting AfD tags. I'm not trying to bite, but let's be honest with each other here. --Kinu 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

While I do understand and respect the Wikipedia community, and the content and quality guidelines therein, I do not see any real harm in allowing our article to persist. And even if, as you say, we use this page as a means of promotion, what harm is there? We won't be generating any financial benefits from this, as the stories are being published in a local Oxford humor magazine free of royalty, as we also have not copyrighted or syndicated our characters or stories. If anything, the only consequence of allowing the article to persist, would be more traffic to the website, and I hardly deem that to be an undesirable side-effect. Furthermore, it is a negligible possibility that anyone apart from my partner and I will view the page for well over a year, so, I say again, what harm is there?

  • the only consequence of allowing the article to persist, would be more traffic to the website... Again, advertising is not the purpose of Wikipedia. As the author, your purpose on AfD should not be asking "Why not keep this article?" but answering "Why keep this article?" --Kinu 03:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a rather elementary question. "Why?" "Why not?" We're not children anymore, my friend, but that particular argument could render us as such, and go on for an indeterminable amount of time. I simply fail to see why you cannot just allow us our one article. It's not bothering, intruding, or linking to anyone elses. You've probobly allready wasted more than a fair share of your time. As to the purpose of Wikipedia.. I was always under the impression that it was a community-driven encyclopedia or articles posted by users on topic which they find interesting, and have a knowledge of. If there can be a Wikipedia page for a novel, there can be one for our as-of-yet unreleased stories, there is absolutely no real difference there. And like I said, it has the possibility of generating traffic for the rest of the website, which is hardly a detrimental attribute. To be honest, I'm starting to think of the restriction on our article as, dare I say it, a tad fascistic. While I can certainly appreciate a certain amount of zeal for upholding the site's 'regulations', I hardly see it as being neccesary, or even particularly fair, to be so prejudiced against something you term 'nonsense'. I term some of those guidelines 'nonsense', does that give me the right to change or remove them? I hardly think so.

This is a pretty common argument here on AfD, so let me warn you that you are unlikely to gain traction with it. In any case, WP is an encyclopedia, not a repository for everything in the world, and therefore it is restricted to topics that are encyclopedic: that is, well known, reasonably important, verifiable, and objectively written. When your work is well known, we will be happy to have an article describing it. The key phrase in your paragraph above is "as-of-yet unreleased." See in particular what wikipedia is not, including "wikipedia is not a crystal ball." thanks. bikeable (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I simply fail to see why you cannot just allow us our one article: Because that would set a precedent. Wikipedia would have to allow anything and everything, and AfD would cease to exist. ... It's not bothering, intruding, or linking to anyone elses: Orphaned articles are frowned upon. If an article is relevant, it's safe to say that at least one other one would link to it. ... If there can be a Wikipedia page for a novel, there can be one for our as-of-yet unreleased stories, there is absolutely no real difference there: Yes there is. One has been released, one has not and with no verifiability of release beyond your own claim. As has been said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ... I'm starting to think of the restriction on our article as, dare I say it, a tad fascistic: Other users and I have cited reasons. We don't know each other. We don't always agree. But we do here. Doesn't sound fascist to me. ... I term some of those guidelines 'nonsense', does that give me the right to change or remove them? I hardly think so.: Apples and oranges. Feel free to read the talk pages for the guidelines. They've been discussed, rediscussed, and discussed again. They're not about 100% agreement, and some people downright hate them. But they're about consensus, just like AfD. Sometimes I interpret the guidelines differently and I lose to the majority on some AfDs. That's life. So is this. If the consensus here is to delete, within those guidelines, then that's what it is. --Kinu 04:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, not G1...but G3. It shows blatant disregard for Wiki-policy, IMO. PJM 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If being well known is a pre-requisite for an article to stay on Wikipedia, I could nominate a rather large number of articles for deletion on that exact same basis. Hypocrisy is a terrible habit. If that is such a common argument, perhaps you should take a step back, be 'objective' yourself, and consider as to why that it is so common? I'm sure your first remark on that will be something derisive or involving a degradation of the maturity of those who use the argument. However, if many people use it, could it be, oh my stars, that it is a valid and sound argument? And, if such is the case, a sound and valid argument generating no 'traction', as you put it, is hardly a positive light to have yourself viewed in. Furthermore, what 'consensus' has been achieved? The way I see it, two people wish the article to be deleted, and two do not.

  • The argument would be relevant if it didn't go against the core of wikipedia, which is, again, an encyclopedia. See WP:N and WP:V for rough guidelines on articles that belong in wikipedia. Certainly, if you think that there are articles that don't belong, you are welcome to put them up for deletion (although we hold very strongly to WP:POINT). We're not singling you out; yours is one of many that someone (in this case me) thought wasn't appropriate. As far as "something derisive", you don't give us enough credit; we try to assume good faith. I'd encourage you to learn more about what wikipedia is here for and stick around and contribute to that process. bikeable (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nonsense; just look at the ninjas /shakes head. Toss this drivel, PLEASE! Avi 04:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What, May I ask, is your problem with Ninjas? Are you racially disinclined to idols of Asian folklore? Racially intolerant? That poses an interesting question, as to the fairness of your..Opinion.

Fair enough, I think you've all made your points. We imposed something on your premises which you clearly don't want to have here; so go for it. I'm not opposed to the deletion of this article anymore. - A.M.


I am, however, opposed to the existence of Avi. - A.M.

I'm inclined to agree. I would, however, like to thank you for your maturity and patience in this matter. We very much appreciate you taking the time to make us understand why our article cannot stay, and we apologise for using up so much of your time. Which was our goal. -LD

Likewise. Racist. -LD

  • Comment: Motion to withhold responses and counterattacks per WP:TROLL and WP:CIV. --Kinu 04:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Pajoolr Bless You All.

  • Speedy delete per Kinu Ruby 04:20, 7 February 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.