Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wings of Voyage
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. The article was nominated for deletion by its author and sole editor, Jake3DTrains (talk ยท contribs), who also blanked it (and, apparently whilst not logged in, requested its deletion a second time), and thus qualifies under CSD criterion G7. At least one other editor, Mysidia below, concurs. Discussions of verifiability and notability of the subject matter are left to future discussions of any future article on this topic. Uncle G 19:29:57, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
[edit] Wings of Voyage
Delete I accidentally submitted this article while it was in an extremely incomplete state. ~ Jake 03:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, but because of non-notoriety. Assuming you're Jake from this sonicstadium.org message board, Wings of Voyage is an online story written by you. In my opinion, this isn't enough to warrant an article. If I'm wrong about my assumption, please disregard my vote. -D. Wu 04:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I was going to use this article as a means of compiling information, themes, and such about it; the idea that my intention was to advertise it is quite false, since I am quite aware (yet unfazed by the fact that) my story will remain unpopular. For an idea of how the finished article would have looked like, refer to an article regarding an actual novel such as "1984" by George Orwell, which is far from being an advertisement for the book. Still, by all means I'm wanting this void article to be removed at the moment. If, however, you are saying that this article should be deleted because of non-popularity, I suppose I can't do much other than to refrain from posting this article, regardless of whatever content I may put in it. Since I am fairly new at this and probably missed a few things in the guidelines of what and what not to post as an article, thank you for pointing this out. ~ Jake 11:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a primary source and Wikipedia is not a hosting service. It's not the author-submission section of Amazon. It's an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Articles on stories are not here to be the primary sources of information about those stories. Our article on Nineteen Eighty-Four cites several sources where other people have written about (i.e. reviewed, commemorated, or analyzed) the story, and those (as well as other people simply reading the story) are what the article is based upon. That's what Wikipedia is here to do: to report what (it can be verified that) other people know about stuff. It is not here to report what the creator of the stuff wants people to know but that in fact nobody else knows. The place for you to provide new information, that heretofore only you know, to the world about your story is your own web site. When your story becomes read; is publicly reviewed, criticized, and reported by third parties; and generally enters the realm of other people's knowledge to a reasonably widespread degree, then it becomes a candidate for discussion in an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 11:11:12, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
- Okay. I'm sorry that I misunderstood; please delete this article as soon as possible. Thank you. ~ Jake 11:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- You are more than welcome to contribute to any articles where there are sources to cite, of course. Uncle G 19:29:57, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
- Okay. I'm sorry that I misunderstood; please delete this article as soon as possible. Thank you. ~ Jake 11:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a primary source and Wikipedia is not a hosting service. It's not the author-submission section of Amazon. It's an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Articles on stories are not here to be the primary sources of information about those stories. Our article on Nineteen Eighty-Four cites several sources where other people have written about (i.e. reviewed, commemorated, or analyzed) the story, and those (as well as other people simply reading the story) are what the article is based upon. That's what Wikipedia is here to do: to report what (it can be verified that) other people know about stuff. It is not here to report what the creator of the stuff wants people to know but that in fact nobody else knows. The place for you to provide new information, that heretofore only you know, to the world about your story is your own web site. When your story becomes read; is publicly reviewed, criticized, and reported by third parties; and generally enters the realm of other people's knowledge to a reasonably widespread degree, then it becomes a candidate for discussion in an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 11:11:12, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
- Actually, I was going to use this article as a means of compiling information, themes, and such about it; the idea that my intention was to advertise it is quite false, since I am quite aware (yet unfazed by the fact that) my story will remain unpopular. For an idea of how the finished article would have looked like, refer to an article regarding an actual novel such as "1984" by George Orwell, which is far from being an advertisement for the book. Still, by all means I'm wanting this void article to be removed at the moment. If, however, you are saying that this article should be deleted because of non-popularity, I suppose I can't do much other than to refrain from posting this article, regardless of whatever content I may put in it. Since I am fairly new at this and probably missed a few things in the guidelines of what and what not to post as an article, thank you for pointing this out. ~ Jake 11:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete under G7. --Mysidia 05:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Vacuous content. Hamster Sandwich 05:09, 7 August 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
