Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blind to the Molesting Hands
Blind to the Molesting Hands, along with Krystal Love, was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.
Vanity. Published by Janus Publishing, a subsidy (read vanity) publishing company. RickK 10:09, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Not vanity. anthony 警告 13:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Please explain why you feel this is not vanity. RickK 22:01, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- It's not worthless, doesn't fit Wikipedia:Vanity page, and the evidence points toward it not having been written by Krystal Love. Now it's your turn. Why do you think they [the articles, not the book itself] are vanity? anthony 警告 18:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I've spoken to the user, and she has said that she is indeed Krystal Love. So this fits into at least one definition of vanity, but I am willing to rewrite these articles if this is the only objection. anthony 警告 18:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Please explain why you feel this is not vanity. RickK 22:01, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Janus Publishing is clearly a subsidy publisher, as can easily be seen from their website. Therefore, if this is the only publisher of the book, it is a vanity book, and therefore a vanity article that should be deleted. Average Earthman 14:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- So you reject the definition at Wikipedia:Vanity page? anthony 警告 14:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That isn't a strict definition of vanity. Why on earth would you think it is? It's a guideline. We have a VfD so we can discuss things, rather than write a set of rules that must be followed with religious fervour. Average Earthman 17:47, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a strict definition of vanity, I'm just trying to figure out what your definition is. I'm trying to have that discussion which you agree VfD is for. anthony 警告 18:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would make good sense to add "advertisements for vanity press books by their authors" as ipso facto vanity. --jpgordon{gab} 20:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- An NPOV article is not an advertisement. I don't think we set a rule against inclusion of articles about certain books based on the book's publisher, and this doesn't address the Krystal Love article at all. anthony 警告 02:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed, which is why I said specifically "advertisements for vanity press books by their authors." There is, I am certain, the rare author who could write an NPOV article about their own book. Please let me know if you see one. --jpgordon{gab} 02:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- But you voted to delete this article. What part of it do you feel is POV? Why can't we just remove this part? As for your claim that most authors cannot write an NPOV article about their own books, that's part of why I offered to rewrite this article, if that is the full extent of the objections to it. anthony 警告 03:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Once you remove the advertising, and do a bit of research, you discover this is a book that is in no way notable. All web references to it are plugs by the author, as far as I can tell. Vanity press books are ipso facto non-notable, barring strong evidence otherwise (such as sales figures, reviews, or (in the case of this book) any mention whatsoever other than that by the author.) --jpgordon{gab} 22:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I already have removed the advertising and done a bit of research, and it seems that this book is perfectly notable. All books are ipso facto notable. But now that you've retreated from calling it "vanity" and "advertising", "non-notable" is all you can come up with. And that just begs the question. VFD is all about deciding whether or not the subject of the article is notable. anthony 警告 22:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No, books are not ipso facto notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Average Earthman 12:46, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I already have removed the advertising and done a bit of research, and it seems that this book is perfectly notable. All books are ipso facto notable. But now that you've retreated from calling it "vanity" and "advertising", "non-notable" is all you can come up with. And that just begs the question. VFD is all about deciding whether or not the subject of the article is notable. anthony 警告 22:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- sigh. --jpgordon{gab} 22:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Once you remove the advertising, and do a bit of research, you discover this is a book that is in no way notable. All web references to it are plugs by the author, as far as I can tell. Vanity press books are ipso facto non-notable, barring strong evidence otherwise (such as sales figures, reviews, or (in the case of this book) any mention whatsoever other than that by the author.) --jpgordon{gab} 22:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- But you voted to delete this article. What part of it do you feel is POV? Why can't we just remove this part? As for your claim that most authors cannot write an NPOV article about their own books, that's part of why I offered to rewrite this article, if that is the full extent of the objections to it. anthony 警告 03:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed, which is why I said specifically "advertisements for vanity press books by their authors." There is, I am certain, the rare author who could write an NPOV article about their own book. Please let me know if you see one. --jpgordon{gab} 02:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- An NPOV article is not an advertisement. I don't think we set a rule against inclusion of articles about certain books based on the book's publisher, and this doesn't address the Krystal Love article at all. anthony 警告 02:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would make good sense to add "advertisements for vanity press books by their authors" as ipso facto vanity. --jpgordon{gab} 20:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a strict definition of vanity, I'm just trying to figure out what your definition is. I'm trying to have that discussion which you agree VfD is for. anthony 警告 18:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That isn't a strict definition of vanity. Why on earth would you think it is? It's a guideline. We have a VfD so we can discuss things, rather than write a set of rules that must be followed with religious fervour. Average Earthman 17:47, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- So you reject the definition at Wikipedia:Vanity page? anthony 警告 14:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Not notable, advertising. The books have not achieved notability, and the articles are advertising to drum up sales of a self-published work that would profit the author directly. Wikipedia is not a sales medium. Geogre 15:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Author-subsidized publishers have been around for quite some time, the industry exists to feed vanity. Inky 21:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Note that this is an article about a vanity press book by one Tracy Porter, and is posted by User:TracyRenee -- who, besides this contribution, has been link-spamming a plethora of articles with pointers to other Tracy Porter web pages. --jpgordon{gab} 00:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that it fits the definition of a "Vanity page" as such, but it is clearly self-promotion for a non-notable book published by a vanity press. Therefore I vote delete: Wikipedia entries are not a vehicle for advertising and self-promotion. Pnot 01:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If memory serves, didn't we vote to delete similar articles a few months ago? I believe the publisher was even the same. Delete, especially in light of the additional pointers. That bugs me. - Lucky 6.9 02:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- We should probably start an article about the publisher (Janus Publishing), so we can more easily research such things in the future. anthony 警告 02:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, that's a damned good idea. I might tackle that myself later today, time allowing. - Lucky 6.9 21:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, advertising. Jayjg 00:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Verifiable and factually accurate. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 13:16, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Advertising Tuohirulla 13:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Anthony, get a grip. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 16:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.