Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unlock Reality

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. Mangojuice^talk 17:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unlock Reality

Simply put, I don't know what to make of this. That the manuscript exists is largely backed up via the references provided (I'll take BookCrossing as a source independent of the subject of the article). That it's notable is somewhat more debatable, given that it "is not in bookshops yet" and therefore appears to be a 100-page manuscript floating around the place. To give credit where credit is due, this began life as what looked like a Dan Brown-inspired viral-marketing page and now makes a lot more sense. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Forgive me please if this is the wrong method to comment. Unlock Reality has reported readers in Canada, California, The Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, The Isle of Man, Guadaloupe, Switzerland, and probably a few more. It is a Bookcrossing Success of major magnitude, if nothing else.

  It has spawned over 20,000 websites which makes it a phenomenon of our times. I mean what else do you know which is unpublished which is getting that kind of attention. These are points I ask you to consider.

  If I might also please add what I feel makes it notable and worthy of a space here is that it is totally unique, a one of a kind unusual occurance which many people across the world are enjoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmonome (talk • contribs) 2006-09-15 11:26:19

• Delete, we don't have enough information based on Bold textreliable sources and not Original research to produce an article about this manuscript. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Realizing this was lacking, I have added a link to reports from England, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, the Isle of Man, the Caribbean. Canada, Budapest in Hungary, Pennsylvania USA, and Switzerland which constitutes original research from reliable sources from around the world. These are infact first hand reports and impressions of the actual text from readers. These could also be transferred here under a heading Readers Reports, if that would be better?

  signed Tmonome Sept 15th

• This article appears to be part of a campaign of stealth advertising to publicize a forthcoming book. The claim about 20,000 web sites made above is wholly unsubstantiated. (At best, it is the substitution of counting Google hits for actual research.) The only mentions of this manuscript (which is improbably both an "old manuscript" and yet "copyrighted") are on the book's own vanity web site, on self-submission web sites, and on press-release web sites such as PressBox (where the contact information for the press releases refers back to the self-submission web sites). I've yet to find anything at all that isn't part of this self-publicity drive. The only evidence that this manuscript is getting any attention at all is published on those web sites, and thus could be completely manufactured astroturfing for all that anyone can tell. Even the news story that hit the headlines on 2006-07-10 appears to have been carefully orchestrated. (The "trust" that purportedly owns this book has publicly berated its "members" for leaking the book.) This isn't an encyclopaedia article. Delete. Uncle G 12:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - think I'll go with Uncle G here Nigel ^(Talk) 12:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Response, the link I added to the page represents a considerable number of readers from around the world, each with a link to their profile on Care2 and contactable through their messaging service. The 20,000 or so recorded hits on Google is a fact in itself and reflects an interest in the topic. The link to websites and discussion groups which is on the page, if followed lead to many individual’s contributions, all of whom showed an interest. To suggest this is all manufactured is frankly ridiculous. These are all very real people who have enjoyed this work, and are worthy to be respected as researchers in their own right. Especially those who took the time to make actual reports.

  signed Tmonome Sept 15th

  • The "20,000 or so recorded hits on Google" are not research, and are merely occasions where the two words "unlock" and "reality" occur in succession on a web page. Counting Google hits is not research. Uncle G 16:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Citations are: bookcrossing forum, unlockreality.org, yahoo groups, geocities, and care2 forum. No Reliable Sources. -- Fan-1967 14:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reliable Sources. Here you are presented with reports from the general public who have first hand experience of reading this text. That would be a reliable enough source in a court of law, so why not here? Here we have not one or two witnesses, so to speak, but a considerable number, and as I said, on the Care2 site, these are linked with people’s profiles, allowing each to be contacted through the messaging service. These are eyewitness accounts of people's experience with the text. It is difficult to judge these unreliable, while not being insulting to them.

  Apart from that, the link unlockreality.org was produced to show participation by the public, and if followed leads to many website blogs stories and discussions. The Care2 group alone has over 3,000 members yet we have Uncle G telling us "The only evidence that this manuscript is getting any attention at all is published on those web sites." With respect, surely these 3,000 or so members on one of these sites is evidence that this manuscript is getting real attention.

  I don't think anyone is daring to say the text does not exist.

  Through the method provided by Bookcrossing, this text has made its way round the world. That is noteworthy. People from all round the globe are confirming that fact, and that evidence has been presented here. Can we dismiss that?

  We go to medical experts to get a medical opinion and you would accept that as reliable here, No? Well Unlock Reality is a book, and it has gone to book readers for its opinions. These people are witness to its existence, its travels, and its value in their opinion. That is the evidence they bring to this table.

  I love what you are doing here by the way. This is an excellent project.

  signed Tmonome Sept 15th

  • Which is why we need to be very careful about what gets included. Forum and group entries can be created by anyone, anonymously, with no way to determine number or identity of actual posters. Who are "ISDT" or "AnonymousFinder" or "dscape-2"? No way to know. This is why we require verification from independent Reliable Sources, as we define them. That requirement is absolutely written in stone here. Fan-1967 16:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Here you are presented with reports from the general public who have first hand experience of reading this text. — No. What we are presented with are a number of postings on a web site, whose authorships we have no way of determining.

    The Care2 group alone has over 3,000 members — Given that the very first message from one of those "members" on the group's main page is "my name is barbara Smith i like to play bowls out side and go to bingo and go over sease for holidays by the way i ane not veary good at spelling i wuld like to meet inturesting pople so i cane get to know them reley well", the membership count of the group is clearly not a relevant metric. Counting the number of purported people on the page that you actually linked to gives a number that is a couple of orders of magnitude smaller: 22. But as with all such discussion fora, we have no way to know that these are in fact real people at all. Even if they were, there's the fact that those are the very same people that have submitted press releases about this book to PressBox and other web sites, to take into account.

    People from all round the globe are confirming that fact — No, they actually aren't. There's nothing outside of the vanity and self-submission web sites, and even they tell us that there's no book yet. There's nothing to indicate that this isn't a campaign of stealth advertising to publicize a forthcoming book. Uncle G 16:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As I see it what is happening here is a search for independent conformation of the fact that there is genuinely a movement of interest behind the text Unlock Reality (UR) and that it is a genuine publication. I argue that the below links to the records of a court case in the UK’s High Court and several resulting articles from different independent news outlets are such conformation.

The case involved someone attempting to infringe the copy write of Unlock Reality (UR) held by Iindividual Self-Discovery Trust and place it without their permission on the Internet in order to make a profit. Such an attempt in of it self is proof of a wide spread interest. The subsequent case, proof of the existense of the Iindividual Self-Discovery Trust and a broad interest in UR the numerous articles about the court case further proof.

http://www.casetrack.com/ct4plc.nsf/items/0-203-2283

http://www.theregister.com/2006/07/10/google_ad_disclose_case/

http://www.out-law.com/page-7082

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060710GoogleTellsWomanWhichArmToTwist.html

(there are more articles on this case if you wish).

Tony H - 15/09/06— Tony Hartly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The casetrack.com link is strange. As best as I can determine, casetrack is a subscription-only service. Why does the link work? JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncle G, your decision to quote a random profile disappoints me. Here it is again:

The Care2 group alone has over 3,000 members — Given that the very first message from one of those "members" on the group's main page is "my name is barbara Smith i like to play bowls out side and go to bingo and go over sease for holidays by the way i ane not veary good at spelling i wuld like to meet inturesting pople so i cane get to know them reley well"

Not sure where you found this, but I suggest your point would have carried more weight if you had selected one of the people reporting on reading the text in question. Say I discovered that Barbara Smith whom you quote is actually a member here too, what would that say about this group? Nothing I should think.

The court papers, now that is a different story.

signed Tmonome Sept 15th

Been studying your definitions and have a couple of questions, which might help me to make the article better. This one for instance:

Your reference says: “An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.”

Now it appears to me that people’s opinion of Unlock Reality is a vital fact to be proven here. Uncle G tells us there are 22 people in the group I linked to, who express an opinion after claiming to have read the text, but he also points out these might not be real people.

I respond by pointing out that this particular group have links to their profiles, and can be contacted through the Care2 messaging service. When you ask for proof, what exactly would satisfy this situation? Who would it take to make contact with enough of these 22 people to establish the fact?

And when we see 3,000 members of a group dedicated to the text in question, while it is possible for memberships to be duplicated, is it fair to assume that none of these people are real?

And when a search turns up over 22,000 hits when you Google the texts name, and at least 80% of the entries in the top 100 are directly related to the text, can we really assume all of these are fabricated? Even in a court of law, which employs the strictest sense of justice, we hear about reasonable doubt.

We have evidence from British High Court papers that The Individuals Self-Discovery Trust exists as an entity recognised by the court. Those papers also prove the court accepted their connection with the text enough to make a ruling in their favour. The fact that someone felt it was worth the effort and expense in breaching this copyright, indicates there must be a demand making it worth that risk.

Given the verifications provided by the courts, is it reasonable to conclude that all the interest which we see in Unlock Reality is fabricated?

Here is a test for you. Just look at the Care2 site, go to the archives, and see how long it takes you to count the postings in each thread, and while you are there, see the variety and ask yourself what manner of person could fabricate all this?

We are being asked to discredit comments from this site because it may have all been fabricated. I say looking at the actual evidence, the site itself, this is not a reasonable conclusion any reasonable person could possibly come to. And if I am right on this, the article should stay to be improved upon. No Deletion.

Signed Tmonome 15th Sept

• Comment: For more information, see Astroturfing. -- Fan-1967 18:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Blah, blah, blah, Delete per Uncle G. Danny Lilithborne 18:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. I trust his opinion of Wikipedia policy a lot more than a newly created WP:SPA. ColourBurst 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Someone sued them / they sued someone = notability? Wow, where do I sign up? my name is barbara Smith i like to play bowls outside and go to bingo and go over sease for holidays by the way i ane not veary good at spelling i wuld like to meet inturesting pople so i cane get to know them reley well 06:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I commend User:Uncle G's for his, as usual, excellent research, into the claims of this article. I find this article itself is a half cooked SPAM. And for good measure, thre is no measure that the book satisfies WP:BK.-- danntm ^T _C 06:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to say I have added the high court references, as I conquer these are vital to the article.

I note you have an article in progress about the Course in Miracles. This was also a book distributed in manuscript form for a time, which had a similar enthusiastic following. At which point did it become worthy of consideration here? Any book or music or work of art might benefit from a mention here, but does that fact exclude admission? I think not, as I find many things listed here which can be bought. So are we saying Unlock Reality has to be in the best sellers list to warrant inclusion? That would be like saying, far from being against supporting organised promotions, you actually award the ones who are successful.

I’m sure admin will have noted I personally have done my best to take advice and bring this article up to the standard required. I see something unusual happening here, something real, which I feel deserves a mention. I look to the discretion you have to not exclude this.

The measure that the book satisfies is that it is real, and it is of interest. There is sufficient evidence presented in the article to prove that in any court, and indeed one High Court has already ruled on it.

signed Tmonome Sept16th

Regarding the article on A Course in Miracles, I'd suggest the notability would stem from such things as the commercial success of the book (including foreign language translations), the fact that it has been controversial (and not just as a result of litigation) and possibly even the way in which it has integrated itself into pop culture. "Unlock Reality" may well end up achieving all these and more, but until it has then I'm not sure it's a fair comparison. Additionally, the fact that one specific article on a similar topic exists doesn't necessarily mean that any given article on the same topic need to exist. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 08:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasons given for Course in Miracles inclusion:

commercial success

has been controversial

has integrated itself into pop culture

Boiled down, what makes something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia is:

It exists

It is of interest

If one is actually looking at this from a neutral point of view, we are not allowed to judge the level of interest, but merely need to establish it is there to satisfy the criteria. IMHO

signed Tmonome Sept 16th

• Delete astroturfing, per Uncle G. I guess my research was less detailed but I found nothing to contradict this analysis. Guy 11:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. Ergative rlt 17:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to object to the repeated use of the word astroturfing in describing activity surrounding Unlock Reality. Having read the article on astroturfing I must point out that there has been no evidence put forward to indicate in any way that such a practice is taking place. No evidence to indicate that any of the people showing support are other than genuine individuals.

Genuine Grassroots movements tend to follow the path of least expense, it would appear, and that makes sense, if you think about it. Just because astroturfing efforts attempt to mimic these movements by following similar paths, that does not give you or anyone the right to brand something phoney or dishonest, with no evidence to back you up. That is not assuming good faith in any way.

When I say: “People from all round the globe are confirming that fact” referring to the books travels — Uncle G replies “No, they actually aren't.”

It is fully wrong for him to say that. He has no proof to deny this is happening. Just because he does not accept the sources does not mean it is not happening or that he can declare it is not happening. Actually they are, Uncle G.

Also Uncle G tells us:

“What we are presented with are a number of postings on a web site, whose authorships we have no way of determining.”

That is not strictly true either. It has been mentioned several times that each of the names which would confirm the books far travels have links to profiles. Each person could be contacted and asked to send a postcard whose postmark would confirm their location. Like I have heard said here, we have lots of time, and the cost of messaging these people is free. I’m surprised that none of you who are assuming good faith and seeing this from a neutral angle are making any suggestions to help me here.

I see a lot of Deletes, but we are thin on the ground for positive suggestions. No one with some imagination here who can put what is happening in a way that reflects what is known and satisfies your criteria? There is a lot there to just dismiss out of hand. I would be grateful for your help.

signed Tmonome Sept 16th

The fact that not one single established Wikipedia editor has bought your arguments should be a sign to you. The fact that there is that much forum activity without any notice at all from Reliable Sources is in itself suspicious, and is a pattern we have seen before. We do not have to prove that the book is not notable. You have to prove that it is notable, and forum postings are not sufficient or acceptable evidence. Fan-1967 22:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

“Dear Mister Galileo the fact that not one single established scientist has bought your arguments should be a sign to you. The fact that you have done so much scientific activity without any notice at all from Reliable Sources is in itself suspicious, and is a pattern we have seen before. We do not have to prove that the sun orbits the earth. You have to prove that it is the other way around……….”

The validity of reasoning and the collaborating evidence presented constitute the salient pieces of this discussion, surly not who is presenting them. How does one become an ‘established Wikipedia editor’ – I presume by putting forward sound arguments, thus the un-established become the established. Why not have just a few editors in a closed room? Because doing it in the open and letting anyone who wants to particapate allows the ‘un-established’ to be heard also. I find the overt snobbery being displayed here quite something.

It is written above that the burden lies with those who wish to establish that Unlock Reality is notable.

Well it would appear that it is. The Dalai Lama has a copy as does the Arch Bishop of Canterbury. These two men represent the religious and spiritual concerns of countless millions of people. Millions of people who take notice – or find notable – what these men do and read.

The Internet is awash with sites, members and postings, each one representing someone taking note of UR, i.e. finding it notable. The idea that this vast number of entries is the work of one person or group is just absurd. We are not talking about 5 or 10, there are literally tens of thousands.

There are several (at lest eight I have counted) newspaper stories about Unlock Reality's High Court case – when was the last time you saw 1 newspaper article on an un-notable story – let alone 8?

Un-notable hey?

Tony H - 16/09/06

What I feel makes this text notable now is that is has gone as far as it has in manuscript form. There is nothing which even comes close to this.

We could take a few steps and confirm the books travels round the world, or rather than dismiss this altogether, take a neutral view of the internet activity for a moment, by seeing it as a fact that there is a huge amount about this which appears on the internet, which by its nature cannot be fully confirmed but also cannot be ignored, then we still have pictures with exact times and place of very notable people, the Dalai Lama and The Arch Bishop of Canterbury, considering the work, and a High Court Judge ruling with several offical news stories filed as my friend Tony mentions.

We live in a world where, internet phenomena exists as a fact. More and more, not less and less things will be affected by the many free avenues the internet provides, and respectfully, you should have a way to deal with that which is actually neutral to reflect your stated philosophy.

People using the public forums which the internet provides are expressing their right to free speech, and just because some might abuse this, that does not make it right to dismiss the majority of genuine people expressing their views. If you don't feel these voices are worth considering you might want to ask yourself why Rupert Murdoch recently spent $580 million to buy Myspace?

And indeed, why is Myspace included in Wikipedia as it is soley comprised of "a number of postings on a web site, whose authorships we have no way of determining." as Uncle G puts it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace

You might argue that the sheer number of entries on Myspace makes it unlikely that they are all fabricated, which is exactly the same arguement we are making for UR. And when you consider the resources available to someone at Mr Murdoch level, we might well ask which is the stronger arguement of these two.

This is a reality you have to deal with if you really do intend to look at things in a neutral way, not something you can just brush away because it is not perfect. These thousands of internet entries may not carry full weight, but they must be allowed to carry some weight in the light of what supports them.

There is a lot being said here, and I trust it will all be considered.

signed Tmonome Sept 16th

The argument regarding MySpace is, with respect, utterly fallacious. The article on the site is (or at least should be) about the site itself, rather than anything which is on it. Say what you want about lonely teenagers writing about their existential angst and how such-and-such a band is the coolest thing on the planet, but the site has become notable for a variety of reasons. Not the least of these is the fact that it is, to put it mildly, massive in terms of numbers of users.

What we're not in the business of, though, is treating someone or something's MySpace page as proof of anything much beyond their existence. Keep an eye on the AfD listings for a few days and you'll see a series of unsigned bands and wannabe actors having their pages nominated for deletion. Those arguing that the article should be kept will frequently cite a MySpace page.

In other words, the site itself is notable but everyone who has a page on it is almost certainly not so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me)

I contend that ‘Notable’ means, ‘worthy of note: significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded’.

There is an inherent problem here, part of what it is to be ‘notable’ is to be unusual. Unusual entails ‘out of the ordinary’, ‘different to the norm’ or even unique (as may be the case with UR).

The point is that UR’s notability is inextricable linked to it’s unusual nature, which in tuАrn means that ‘similar examples’ or parallels with pervious decisions taken on this site and examples are irrelevant and will be hard to find and if found would serve to show it to be less notable.

Therefore I contend that those who say UR is not notable should have to produce similar examples of unpublished books with a list of attributes comparable to an international following, thousands of websites, getting attention from world spiritual leaders and at the centre of a high court action, in order to establish that UR is mundane/ordinary and not ‘notable’.

Tony H – 16/09/06

The alternative would be for those saying that it is notable to demonstrate how it lines up with the proposed criteria at WP:BK. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that the Wikipedia test for notability for people is also recommended for use with books.

From previous comments I read here it appears I wrongly assumed that Unlock Reality’s relatively high Google hit count was not to be considered in determining its notability. I see now that it is an alternative factor recmmended which can be used, which you have dedicated a page to explaining, entitled the Wikipedia Search Engine Test, also referred to as the Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Search_engine_test

Accordingly I present the following recent search result to be added for consideration:

Google Search conducted Sept 17th 2006, 16:07 GMT Results 1 - 10 of about 24,100 for "Unlock Reality". (0.31 seconds)

Signed Tmonome Sept 17th

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BK#Threshold_standards

While Unlock Reality is still a manuscript, (not published yet), and as such would not be expected to satisfy any of the book threshold standards, it none the less satisfies one of the threshold standards for books set by Wikipedia, as a copy of the manuscript is officially catalogued by its country of origin's official library. British Library c2004. Shelfmarks YK.2005.b.3116

http://catalogue.bl.uk/F/JH1LCBVKX7EE83U1T2XK4SCAVUGS7KRTTBDCGB7J781QFMURGU-06263?func=find-b&request=unlock+reality&find_code=WTI&adjacent=Y&image.x=29&image.y=4

This may be useful in further verifying its existence, if nothing else.

Signed Tmonone Sept 17th

• Nice cherry-picking on the standards. The full sentence there is: "Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (for books published after 1966), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library." I think you need eleven more libraries. Fan-1967 16:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The intention of bringing the manuscript's British Library catalogued status to our panel's attention was stated as clearly as possible.

signed Tmonome Sept 17th

• Comment Someone close this AfD already, please. Danny Lilithborne 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• You don't want to see Tmonone repeat the same arguments ten more times? Fan-1967 22:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE...agree with Danny Lilithborne...Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but Tmonone has thought AfD is his for arguing "keep" until he's blue in the face. By the time he's done, I'll be that clichéd skeleton in the corner replete with cobwebs. —ExplorerCDT 21:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with defending an article, but not to this extent. Guy 22:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Guy.

Your site provides a means for me to tell you why I feel this topic is suitable under your terms to be included in your publication, and now you are criticising me for making use of it. Aren’t you meant to be presuming good faith, or did I just imagine reading that here somehwere?

--Tmonome 06:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: to Tmonome Make the argument once, and concisely. Personally, you're either trying to win by either fatiguing us into not reading through the AfD or by spewing an Argumentum verbosium and that just makes me and other editors sick. You don't need to defend something over and over again and then harass people who vote against what you think with lengthy speeches for the lost cause of trying to change their minds. Most people won't read what you have to say anyway if you can't say it in less than a usual paragraph. And most people don't change their minds, much less give an AfD a second thought. Vote, give a brief discussion of why you voted the way you voted, and move on. Oh...learn how to format your contributions to a discussion too. Because you screw up the aesthetics and flow of a page with an unwieldy, unformatted post like you've spewed (repeatedly) above. —ExplorerCDT 07:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My discovery of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Search_engine_test

made all I said on considering Search Engine results redundant. I apologise.

(there is no option to indent on my (Firefox) browser. Help Please)

--Tmonome 07:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting a colon in front of the line (like in this one) indents it. More colons indents further.

See how easy it is? Fan-1967 13:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Just to let everyone know, I've put the article through an extensive clean up just now. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 21:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I don't see that helping. The issue is the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. Frankly, this AFD is overdue for closing and I suspect your effort will go for nought. Fan-1967 21:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for your help RoyalGuard. I'm grateful.

It should be noted that there have been some major changes in actual content of the article too, since this discussion began, as comments were all considered and acted upon as much as possible.

--Tmonome 11:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. With the exception of the recent cleanup (which I'll admit makes things a lot easier to follow), the only change in content since this was originally listed was this edit and the following one correcting spelling. While this is an addition of matter, it hardly moves the work any closer to notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 11:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Respectfully changes in content were:

The question of how this could be an old manuscript yet hold a copyright, was answered by adding it was “recently updated”.

The list of countries the manuscript has travelled to, was added with link to reports from readers.

And the entire litigation section was added with link to verify.

--Tmonome 15:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• You know, there's a very simple way to get your book in Wikipedia. Publish it. If the buzz is real, it will sell a lot of copies, show up with a good sales ranking on Amazon and similar sites, and get reviewed in major publications. Then it will qualify for an article. Fan-1967 15:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Respectfully, it is not my book. The remainder of what you say may be true, but many feel this manuscript has done more than anything in manuscript form before it, and deserves a place here now. Notability is about being unusual not just being famous. It is unusual now. I invite you to provide an example of something comparable to prove me wrong.

--Tmonome 15:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• No, notability is about being famous. Many things are unusual. Fan-1967 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment

Notable 1. worthy of being noted: remarkable

2. person of distinction

Collins Essential English Dictionary 2004

says nothing about requiring fame.

herein is the rub of this entire discussion

• Well, the dictionary has their definition, we have ours. Ours is that, if you need Wikipedia to let people know about you, you don't belong here. Wikipedia is not for helping little-known enterprises gain exposure (or help them find a publisher, for that matter). Fan-1967 16:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, there is no official Wikipedia policy on notability.

--Tmonome 17:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• True. It's a guideline. Doesn't stop us from using it. Fan-1967 17:04, 25 September 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.