Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Havian of Selaren

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 Delete. Essjay · Talk 12:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Havian of Selaren

Neither Google nor Yahoo comes up with any hits for "Sir Havian". Nor are there any hits for "Henry Wayne" +Havian. The link goes to a blank page. John Barleycorn 05:11, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sir Havian is a recently created character and his homepage appears to be under construction. I am the author of this article and was involved with the play and the film. These are small and independent efforts. Just because it is not on the internet yet does not mean that it does not exist (Tonywiki 05:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC))

It does, however, indicate that it is probably not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. What is "Jared and the Shark"? and how has it managed to have eight episodes, if it doesn't show up in Google or Yahoo? John Barleycorn 05:22, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable. And keep those links on the page red, please. CanadianCaesar 05:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I did not make it clear in my earlier post that I was involved in the production of the Sir Havian film. I created this page because I am pleased with the effort and I attempted to write it in a factual way. I will vote to keep the article, but I am a relative Wikipedia "rookie" and I certainly understand if another view prevails. (Tonywiki 05:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC))
  • You did make that clear, which is why we must suspect vanity, a criterion for deletion. CanadianCaesar 05:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I am not a registered user and don't know anything about this article, but it seems to me that if there's nothing in this article that is in error and if noone knows about this play, isn't that a good reason to keep it instead of delete it?
  • Previous Vote unsigned by 66.17.112.6. "Errors" have already been explained. If no one knows about this, it's of no use; no one will look it up. Am I in "error" to suspect sockpuppetry? CanadianCaesar 05:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know what you mean by "sockpuppetry" because I am pretty new to all this. All I can think is that you are suggesting that I just wrote the comment as another user. I didn't. I did tell some friends that I had created the page; I don't suppose it is out of the realm of possibility that one of them posted a comment.

Previous comment unsigned by User:Tonywiki (drini ☎ 06:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC))

• Delete vanity. drini ☎ 06:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• I just have to say that, although I have used Wikipedia extensively and I appreciate its quality, I have never before paid any attention to the process by which its quality is maintained. If this article is not appropriate I understand and will accept what seems to be the growing consensus. Thank you to all of you for doing this important work. Please forgive me also for the beginners-errors I have made in this process. (Tonywiki 06:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC))
• Delete Not every new venture is encyclopediable. Sorry, Tonywiki: nothing about you personally. "Vanity" simply means self-inserted.--Wetman 06:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It is I who owes the apology. Clearly I was wrong to even suspect what I did. Sorry, Tonywiki. CanadianCaesar 07:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • No big deal, Caesar. You are probably right to be suspect of comments from IP addresses. (Tonywiki)

• Delete unless reputable independent sources can be found for the statements made in the article. Lupin 16:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable and uncorroborated; vanity likely -Soltak 20:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as premature, without prejudice to creation of an article at some future time, at which point someone not connected with the project should write it. An article about a work-in-progress by the author is tantamount to Original Research. Robert A West 21:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 02:00, 31 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.