Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle Of Jakes' Better Business Forms


 * 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 -- JForget  23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle Of Jakes' Better Business Forms
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This seems to be a non-notable work of fiction; I can find very little information about it. Rnb (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Well. That didn't take long.Perhaps you should read the story.The thought that the article doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion is merely an opinion.You will not find much about it on the internet, as there isn't much about it outside of the online gun owning community.I apparently think that it is notable as I have created a wikipedia article about it.You should direct us to the criteria for inclusion, so we can all see for ourselves.This looks like a political stunt to me.Have you ever read the works of George Orwell ?Saltforkgunman (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment.In fact, I find it odd that you would noninate for deletion a story that you haven't even read.Does the fact that the story has a pro freedom, anti government slant, affect your opinion as to wheather the story should be included in wikipedia?Saltforkgunman (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Wikipedia guidelines on notability for fiction are available at WP:Fiction. I don't think the content of the story has any bearing on notability, to be honest, which is why I haven't read it and don't think I need to. As far as this being a "political stunt," I'm pro-gun ownership and particularly enjoyed Down_and_Out_in_Paris_and_London, but neither of those things came into play when I nominated the article for deletion; it just looks like a story that only a handful of people are currently interested in, which wouldn't meet the criteria for notability in my mind. I'm curious to see what others say. Rnb (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment.Yes, there are few people who are interested in the story, as it has never been published in book form.I think that what makes it notable is that it was spontaneously written by a bunch of people on the internet.There are in fact thousands of people in the online gun owner community that know about and have read the story.It strikes me as a pretty good effort , for a bunch of keyboard commandos.:)Saltforkgunman (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete An unpublished, online-only novel, written by forum members, the title of which only garners 5 Google hits? While perhaps "a pretty good effort, for a bunch of keyboard commandos," not notable. Maxamegalon2000 05:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable, probable vanity entry. Doc   Tropics  05:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. An Internet-based story ought to turn up more than seven Google hits (only one without Wikipedia and its mirrors, and that's the story itself) if it is notable.  There's no evidence of any third-party coverage, reliable and in-depth or otherwise.   Anturiaethwr  Talk  05:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete no references, google news/search turn up next to nothing, does not seem to meet WP:FICTION notability guidelines. Atyndall93  |  talk  06:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Negative, Doc.My screen name does not appear in the list of authors.Saltforkgunman (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:FICTION as there seem to be no third-party references to this. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: The moral equivalent of WP:NFT, I'm afraid. It would be helpful if Saltforkgunman assumed good faith, and recognized that we judge the notability of articles at AfD on whether they meet Wikipedia policy and guidelines.    Ravenswing  15:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete--completely non-notable self-published stuff. My only regret is that I didn't get to be the nominator. Qworty (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (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.