Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skinner

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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Skinner

Utter nonsense, non-encyclopedic. I can't make heads or tails of this. --MisterHand

Speedy delete as Complete Bollocks. Essexmutant 16:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep: it is a book biography - of Neal Asher, as that is the only article that links to it - that is the reason I didn't list it for deletion before and just added context and wikify templates. -localzuk 16:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete: As it currently stands it's unintelligible (or as Essexmutant rather more eloquently put it, 'complete bollocks'). --kingboyk 16:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment This may look like complete bollocks in the context of Wikipedia, but in the context of a blurb for a sci-fi novel it makes rather more sense. Probably copied from the author's website or the book jacket. --Spondoolicks 17:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, but it's the context of Wikipedia we're talking about. If the article were cleaned up I might be persuaded to change my vote. --kingboyk 17:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Essexmutant 17:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete utter gibberish. Also refer to The Line of Polity added by same user Planktune. Atrian 19:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense, no context, useless to a researcher. -- (aeropagitica)  22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MisterHand. Also refer to my rant at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Line of Polity. Madman 22:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Gibberish. Dan 22:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as completely unintelligible. If someone cares about the article then clean it up first so we could decide if it is encyclopedic/notable/etc. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:42Z
• Delete per nom. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment at my urging, the original author has provided some context, and modified the article. -- MisterHand 14:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's an improvement over what it was before. Still doesn't appear encyclopedic as written though. Essexmutant 14:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Have any of the complainants read the book in question? If so you might help by contribution! I am new to Wiki and would prefer help to hassle. Also note that it is an ongoing article not a 100% synopsis of the book and its author, if thats what you require then add it yourself Planktune 15:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't sit around all day writing and editing Wiki like some of you. You may type a thousand word article in one go. I can only afford the time to do it bit by bit. I would suggest that you give an article more time before you crusade against it. Planktune 15:10, 6 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.