Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioforce (Omni Books)


 * 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. Tan  &#124;   39  15:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Bioforce (Omni Books)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable fictional character from someone's self-published book. Completely unnotable book and certainly not notable characters. Wikipedia is not a personal website host nor the place to build someone's notability. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are character/fictional element articles for the same unnotable, self-published book:

Also, here is the on-going related AfD Articles for deletion/Coalition's War (Omni Books). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This Page Shouldn't be Deleted. This Book is Sold Internationally.Souper Chiva (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — SuperChiva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

These pages shouldn't be deleted. Unnotable book is completely subjective - I could call ANY book that. This book is in europe, asia, and the americas (a list is on rejectionpress.com). If this article and it's content are not false, why is it being targeted for deletion? How much of wikipedia is about fictitious subjects that many people could call unnotable? I think these articles should stand and people should find something notable to do!.spydr357 (talk) 3 June 2009  —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC). — spydr357 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There is absolutely no basis for deletion here, it is a legitimate piece of work. Personal opinions and attacks are subjective, and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. leppardjane —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leppardjane (talk • contribs) 06:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)  — Leppardjane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This book is published none the less. So facts of the book should be welcomed, just as Much as every Marvel and DC comic book characters. So when can this book be worthy? What stadards must be meet? Certainly not to the standerards of User:Collectonian? "Unnotable fictional character from someone's self-published book[1][2]. Completely unnotable book and certainly not notable characters. Wikipedia is not a personal website host nor the place to build someone's notability. -- Collectonian" The unnotable book? When does a book become un-unnotable? When it becomes as big as Harry Potter? Im a little lost becuase I dont believe there is a scale to messure the Unnotable?--Blink78130 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blink78130 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)  — Blink78130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Would self publishers such as Henry David Thoreau, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, or Benjamin Franklin be marked for speedy deletion? Again, I say this articles should stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spydr357 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — Spydr357 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This page is riddled with sock puppets. Most the people posting here are only posting here because the author asked them to. Personally, I think a strong delete is in order, even if the author is a swell guy. His book needs to have more notability before consideration here.

And the reason I am not posting using my personal name is because he has already posted the identity of one Wikipedia editor on his MySpace blog. is of note. 71.72.162.219 (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If we are all sock puppets, why do we all have different IP addresses from all over? I read this person's book and I keep up with his page. Every couple of weeks he posts again and again about the articles that are being put here on. Four times now I know he directed his 30 something thousand fans/friends here. How many people does it take to become notable? I think this whole thing is silly. "More notability before consideration here," ??? is this the pentagon now? How many scifi works are enshrined in wiki? I think this is a case of one admin targeting someone they don't like or agree with - end of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.110.236.22 (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — 173.110.236.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * You don't need to have the same IP to be a sock puppet. Rallying your friends on your personal blog serves the same purpose. Read about notability on Wikipedia for further information. Several verifiable sources have to make reference to the work for inclusion on Wikipedia. 71.72.162.219 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

1 - you are a hater. 2 - show me a verifiable werewolf, until then why does wiki have so many articles and opinions (not notable) on this site. What a bunch of do nothings with nothing better to do. Are you the same guy as Collectonian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spydr357 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As a personal policy, I don't normally respond to insults, but I think it would do well here for the community. Read the two links I said above. As for "verifiable werewolves", the point is not even related. If one were to write an article about werewolves, it would have to be by using reputable second-hand resources (i.e. journals, news articles, noted scholars, etc.) about the mythos of werewolves. Werewolves do not have to exist to write a verifiable, neutral article about them. As for my identity, while it isn't relevant, I am not Collectorian. Any admin can verify that. 71.72.162.219 (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I spent a little time thinking about this before i decided to say anything. I am not a sock puppet when i choose to not delete this article, and related articles. I made my decision based on the fact that the book that this article is about, and the characters contained within, is a published work. Based on this alone, i can't, logically back the deletion decision. Calling this work, "unnotable" is a matter of opinion. The fact still remains that it is a published work, easily purchased on Amazon, and other such sites. Almost anything could be labeled "unnotable" if seen in the right place of the world. I understand that this being picked for deletion was like winning the lottery in reverse, and most likely was not personal, but in a over-zealous attempt to make Wikipedia a more reliable source, we should be careful not to break the rules that we judge by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turninrobot (talk • contribs) 14:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — Turninrobot (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Non-notable characters in a series written by a non-notable author. The series isn't notable (see Google News Archive and Google). The lack of reliable sources and the lack of a notable series means that these fictional characters can't even be merged. Sockpuppet votes have no sway over AfD discussions. Cunard (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all. No evidence presented our found in my own search to support notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sock/meatpuppets above have been claiming notability really loudly, but have not come up with a single reliable third-party source to support it. Availability on Amazon.com does not make a book notable. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 09:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete entire set as listed. Fails WP:BK, fails WP:N, fails WP:RS. Those who have already expressed their somewhat intense personal interest in this literature are also recommended to check out WP:COI and WP:NOTMYSPACE for further understanding as to Wikipedia's purpose and content policy, and WP:MEATPUPPET and WP:SOCKPUPPET for dessert. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have done some thinking and as the best thing that I though up, I am submitting all of my created pages for deletion. I realize that I when I went with making the easier pages first(character pages) and saving the harder pages for later(pages relating to the book itself) I was doing things backwards. As I said before I am ok with all of my pages currently pending for deletiion to be deleted. I hope that it would alright that I create an article for the book and/or series of which these pages relate to in the correct way. I am sorry for causing so much trouble and I hope that something like this matter does not happen again. Jakesnake13 (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As anonymous IP 71.72.162.219 above and a person who is deciding to now stay out of this debate, since I "know" Joe and only posted what I did above as revenge for an understandable reaction I did not like nor thought was right, I will tell you what the people have posted here are generally correct. Please carefully read about notability and verifiability on Wikipedia. I also had an article deleted on here and in the end, I see it really is for the protection of the integrity of the encyclopedia. I am willing to help you establish notability if it is there. And it may not even be there yet. But if people look at this calmly and coolly and rational decisions are made, it may one day be there. Joe has a reader base of around 30,000+ people (if all of the people on his MySpace page are truly fans) and one day, may be notable enough for Wikipedia and other encyclopedias, online and off. And maybe you can consider a mentorship? Drumpler (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also encourage you to read WP:COI before attempting anymore work in regards to this book/series. If the works are notable, someone who is not the author, his family, nor among his MySpace friends, will actually create the article. At this time, the book isn't notable per Wikipedia's book notability guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Collectonian is referring to WP:COI - I too recommend having a good look at the policies cited in the discussions here. Also the creator and supporters may find it worthwhile having a look at some of the other pages up for WP:AFD (links the day they were flagged - they generally have 5 days, so the older ones are more likely to have more contributions to the discussion). These will also show how the policies are objectively applied and I'm sure it won't be long before you guyz come across an article where you'll easily see why they are essential :) Plutonium27 (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What is this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Omni_(Omni_Books) I used the wikipedia Search but didn't find any articles about the books themselves. Why would someone make articles for characters, technology, various conflicts, and whatnot, for a series of books, without making an article for the books themselves?   D r e a m Focus  14:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See Jakesnake13's explanation above (its currently just below my Delete). Helps to read the page before commenting...Plutonium27 (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Fails the guidelines listed elsewhere, and the sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting don't speak highly of this situation, either.  This particularly applies as at the extent of the contributions of at least one of the puppets is vandalizing the Austin Powers page.Tyrenon (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well actually the sockpuppetry case was incorrect the only extra account that I had was omniuniverse which I only use when i'm away from home, and it was never used in any of the deletion discussions. All the other accounts are not mine. and I've never even looked at the austin powers page.

Jakesnake13 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Jakesnake13 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2009 (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.