Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CYBERKILL


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

CYBERKILL

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I do not believe that the subject of this article meets the criteria for book notability. Google brings up a lot of pages but they are mainly blog entries, booksellers, or sites that host the flash game. There are no mentions in review publications or newspapers, etc. ... disco spinster  talk  16:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

I would have to disagree, this is a real novel, I found it for sale on Amazon.com here: http://www.amazon.com/CYBERKILL-F-F-Fiore/dp/1601458061 I am also finding considerable coverage of it on the internet and move it be accepted by Wikipedia, and considered a useful and valuable contribution to its community. I am going to be watching this thread to see where it goes. Dw817 (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dw817 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I usually can find some kinda significant review for books but this has none except for a passing mention in a blog that it came out. Fails WP:NBOOK "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works", no awards, and no historical or literary significance.--Savonneux (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

dw817:
 * The book is for sale in both hardcover and softcover. If you do a Google Book Search for the title alone, his comes to the top. I have found his book for sale in Fort Worth Texas at Barnes & Noble and Borders, I checked both, on the physical book shelf. I can list their phone numbers and physical addresses if you need further proof. These two companies are literary giants in the world today, there's your literary award, they have undeniably high standards or they would not carry his work. Please support your findings with verifiable research as I have done, Savonneux. I would like to see the author's entry contested peacefully and fairly decided.Dw817 (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Being available for sale does not make a work notable. Being sold at Borders or Barnes & Noble is not equivalent to having received an award.  (And they are not literary giants anyway, they sell books.)  The onus is on the writer(s) of the article to show how the subject does meet WP:NBOOK.  ...  disco spinster   talk  01:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

dw817: I am glad you were able to reach a settlement. I looked up the definition of Encyclopedia recently. It's not a very long sentence. Current Wikipedia does not meet its current definition. Neither is Wikipedia included or defined in my own personal Encyclopedia (which I have in my hands), or even "http://www.encyclopedia.com." Apparently your free web service didn't meet their standards. Though you can find Encyclopedia the definition and its background listed in an Encyclopedia itself. What you have done is taken a perfect doctrine, the true definition of Encyclopedia and added amendments to it, thereby destroying its original intention. I'm glad you kids are having fun deleting works of others by quoting bylaws and regulations that only "award winning" entries can make, but that was never the original intent of the Encyclopedia itself. Never. And I am also fully aware that many of the laws made in Wikipedia are made directly by people such as yourself who delete other peoples entries and as such, you can change the laws to match the crime. I have no reply to that knowledge. I also know I am talking DIRECTLY to to wrong people here. What I wrote will be ridiculed, at best recorded out of curiousity to tell others, but never taken seriously. In Wikipedia's opening statement, it is not a dictionary. I contest in final gentlemen that it is neither an Encyclopedia, free or otherwise. Should any website that claims to provide Encyclopedia services to others decide to include Wikipedia as a valid entry in theirs, I might be so inclined to believe. Merely being listed in newspaper, magazine, and trade journals does not count. Those are my standards. You must be listed in ANY Encylopedia to be recognized as a true Encyclopedia yourself, though that is the smallest of my concerns. I refer to my opening statement: "I needed to hear this." I hope these words will not fall on deaf ears, and if they do, I hope you have the courtesy to give them to someone who will listen to them and understand my concerns.
 * I needed to hear this.

I'm recording a copy of this reply alone for my future records as I believe it holds merit. And I truly do wish you, all of you, the very best of days ahead. Sincerely, David W Dw817 (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1192818/Wikipedia ...  disco spinster   talk  02:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On another note, the point of Wikipedia is not to document everything that has ever happened or come into existence. That is not the point of any encyclopedia.  Do you think that this Cyberkill book would make it into Encyclopedia Britannica?  I doubt it.  Yes, Wikipedia is different from print encyclopedias in that it can be edited by anyone.  However, because of this open concept, it is essential to have certain criteria for inclusion, otherwise the site will become nothing more than a free web host.  The premise of the site is not "anything goes"; it is simply an acknowledgment that there are many people out there with knowledge and skills and so why not bring them all together to contribute to something useful?  ...  disco spinster   talk  02:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

dw817: >> addition: Britannica is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is NOT Britannica. Wikipedia entry attempt failed. Let's say you have a valid argument here. Then I put it to you that Wikipedia is ill-equipped at defining specifically what it is designed for. This entry should never have been accepted, ever. You should not have raised the authors hope by giving them a chance to enter it, only to have it shot down. This is an emotional statement of mine and I'm certain it has no place here. Continuing, I would enjoy seeing future Wikipedia stating very clearly that NO books of any kind are accepted from the 20th century (not 19th as there are notable works). Any books written today will clearly be shot down as there is absolutely no way they can meet Wikipedia's standards. I understand there are literary works of merit today that Wikipedia, but novels are not one of them. This is unnecessary but considered extreme courtesy, could you please point me (and others) reading this thread to a Wikipedia entry of any novel ever accepted that was written in 2009 or 2010 that has passed Wikipedia's standards. If you cannot, I well understand and sympathize completely. However, then surely you must see the anguish you have caused this author by pretending to accept his literary work by allowing its entry. I say, a good Wikipedia to me would be one that does not HAVE to go and waste an inordinate amount of time to go weeding through every single blessed entry from John Doe to Ezekiel Smith. No, instead it is one that lets the author know BEFORE they begin, that already, they do not qualify. This can be done quite simply. Instead of allowing others to spend hours, days, and weeks, slaving over a highly creative definition page only to have it shot down, have a single line or two entry stating what they would REQUEST to add to Wikipedia's high standards. And then you holy few (I apologize for the sarcasm) can review which are even ALLOWED to begin to build a page. The bandwidth you would save alone limiting new entry requests to a single 256-char line would more than make up for the way it is now. My concern now is, none of you, absolutely none of you have control over this. You were chosen by someone who chose someone else who chose someone else ad infinitum. Therefore Wikipedia will continue to entertain the notion of allowing others to enter pages into it only to have them shot down hours or days later. I really don't think you know what that does to someone. For god sake's LIMIT entries without permitting someone to cheerfully make home and then have it burned down the next day. If you contend that Wikipedia was not made for this then I HIGHLY suggest you do not allow an open frame to every single passerby who enters something in, not finding it, and decides, either maliciously for personal capital intent, or honest charitable reason, to build such a page, and, once again, having it burned down because it doesn't meet code.
 * Okay:

DON'T ALLOW ANYONE TO BUILD A HOUSE HERE JUST SO YOU CAN BURN IT DOWN, and then rather cheerfully explain to them, it was a bad house anyway, and then go away broken-hearted.

Job well done guys !
I'm going to add this, because I appreciate the fact you are considering what I am writing. It inclines me to tell others that if they cannot find an encyclopedic entry to something on Wikipedia and they know what it is themselves and are frustrated that Wikipedia doesn't know, then DO NOT attempt an entry, it will be shot down, ESPECIALLY if they have no knowledge of how to build such an article and just want to type in one sentence for a definition to assist others and walk away. I will tell them DON'T DO IT. It may be valid in an encyclopedia but unless they read up on the myriads of how to build a proper Wikipedia page, they will not have a prayer. Question: Do you support non-programmer encyclopedic entries at all ? And if not, that is not a requirement of Wikipedia, but a HANDICAP and limits its knowledge base. On a different notes, I can point out HUNDREDs of entries in Wikipedia that will never ever be included in a standard encyclopedia ever, no matter how much or how little support they receive, so how did they make it in ? I'm not trying to frustrate or anger you, I'm pointing out the numerous holes in the system. Doubtless there is a great deal of handshaking going on under the table to accept entries. I place no accusations, but you must accept for a system of this size through ratio and probability alone, it is a solid granite fact. I am not entertaining the notion you seek out these people as they will be impossible to find, but I AM stating, I find your findings based on individual preferences. There are laws and bylaws in Wikipedia, but they are ALWAYS subject to human interpretation. The bottom-line of ALL of this is THIS: Please stop shooting down entries that will obviously never make the grade. Either that or require stringent measures to prohibit ANY page entry by passerbys. If you want to be an exclusive company, that's fine STATE YOU ARE. Please don't be hypocritical and state you're free and open, the people's encyclopedia, for user entries when in fact your exclusive rules will burn down ALL entries unless someone is intimately familiar with the Wikipedia's staff and operating system, and I mean INTIMATELY gentlemen. Pulling back in focus I am truly amazed at the depth and clarity this article scheduled for deletion has about his novel. I could never do that myself, which is probably not saying anything, but I doubt over 10,000 random people off the street couldn't do it either. This gentlemen is what you are deleting. Are you SO concerned about the storage space this entry is taking that reasons are found to delete it, or in fact, it is considered an inferior and invalid entry to Wikipedia's definition of presentation, which I doubt most seriously. Why on EARTH did you let him work so hard at making this remarkable entry only to have it burned down ? I'd like you to pause for a second. Disregard policy for ONE SECOND, and click the CYBERKILL at the top of the page to see the time and considerable effort the author has made into this entry. You should be ASHAMED for letting him work on it this long only knowing full well you are going to delete it, with or without a discussion. If this sounds like an accusation it is, absolutely NO-ONE came to this man's defense except me, who hasn't even read the book, but admires the author enough to put serious work into his entry. Why are you EVEN debating about deleting it when you knew full well no-one could defend him, not me, my words hold no merit in his defense, you're going to delete it anyway and I'm going to sit here and SMILE while you do it. We go beyond the point of you collecting and giving abstract ideas about why something should be deleted on this site, notwithstanding what this site does or does not stand for. YOU go beyond the fact that you have never failed in a deletion, whether or not it was "justified." You never lose in your attempt, no-one will ever stand against you, and I have to laugh out loud at that. If this site is truly open architecture and you have NO power outside my own, any one's, as an individual, as we are all one so Wikipedia claims, then I must applaud you for standing while everyone else is seated. Please have a seat. Do the impossible. Do the right thing, and you won't find it written in a book. Sincerely, David W Dw817 (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

dw817: Added >> Whpq: a book you can physically put in your hand is, in most conversation circles, considered a reliable source. It exists. I have no idea what you are referring to. You have done the author of this page a great disservice by threatening to destroy his work by quoting regulations. You continue to do yourselves an even greater disservice by allowing this mockery of a justice to occur, notwithstanding whether or not his page does or does not meet your qualifications, that is completely beside the point now. I'm certain a great number of you now are delighted in my rants and eagerly look forward to more, amusing that I am. But the funniest thing of all, none of you understand what torment you've put the author through. None of you are willing to admit it, take responsibility for it, or even, god forbid, apologize. Just "* DELETE" there's the ticket. I never thought I would find such remarkable and intelligent people who are learned beyond years in the ways of Justice and Punishment, yet crippled and completely debilitated in the ways of Compassion and Humility. I'm done here. Kick the tires and light the fires kids. Maybe, eventually, someone will smack you in the head and say HEY, WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS WRONG. Why don't you try to help people here instead of constantly knocking them down. To HELP them build here. Please correct me on this because I would like to be COMPLETELY wrong about all of you. Sincerely, David W Dw817 (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can verify that it exists and is for sale. But beyond that, there is no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, all of you, every time you speak, you jingle, with all your awards, medals, and trinkets. I am sure they are well-deserved.  I'm tired, and I must agree what I wrote yesterday as a real brainweave, and I apologize for that .. there is room for improvement in Wikipedia, but as long as you keep allowing others to build houses here, wait until they are very satisfied with them, then burn them down by quoting regulations, rules, and the "laws" of a good and ethical society that Wikipedia is, and then decorate yourself with medals and trinkets for your manipulative logical games and cleverness, and even have the tenacity to try to psychologically manipulate those builders into believing that it was for the good of society you destroy their work (but wait until they finish it first so you can thoroughly enjoy their misery), you will have failed yourself as being recognized as anything more than petty arsons and vandals.

dw817: The only thing relevant here is to delete this article. I know that, and YOU knew that when he started writing his first sentence. You were ALL AWARE of what he did and instead of deleting it immediately, you waited, and waited, and waited, for him to do a really nice polished job. And to ease your consciences you all gather around in this star-chamber trying to find logical reasons that meet Wikipedia's unique set of laws for for igniting his house. It's really a sick sense of justice, I'm sorry, I just don't get it. Cut to the chase. STOP deliberating whether or not he qualifies to meet your criteria as he didn't the first sentence he wrote, BURN THE HOUSE ALREADY, and then MAYBE if you insist on being beneficial in the future, STOP others before they begin, actually talk to them, you have that ability, explain to them that you plan to burn their work down so they don't go through the TORMENT of seeing it destroyed later once they've gotten it looking really nice. Don't sit there and comfortably drool while someone slaves over their work and then when they leave to show their friends, burn it down in their absence and just as bad is to slap this notice to let them know it WILL be burned once the star-chamber has found sufficient evidence, and it will.
 * Comment - In what way have we caused the author of the article, user:Cmatney, "torment"? That editor has not made any statement that would lead to such a conclusion.  And in any case, that is not relevant to this discussion.  What is relevant is whether the book meets the inclusion criteria set out.  And note that when creating a new article, there is a note specifically stating "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted."   I've tried to help.  I've looked for sources to substantiate its inclusion on Wikipedia.  But these sources simply don't exist.  I'll be happy to be proved wrong. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't believe what I'm reading. The author MUST contact you and say, "Dear Chaps.  I am tormented, have a lovely day."  ANYONE who burns down someones house is tormented whether they say they are or not.  It's a kind of after-effect in the human nature to feel loss when someone destroys our work.  I'm sorry if that's difficult to understand.

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

THAT IS WRONG PEOPLE.

Here is what really gets me. WHY ARE YOU HERE ? Every single indicator given is to burn the place and yet you meet here like a real sense of justice is being carried out. You're going to delete it, you ALL know you're going to delete it. Are you here JUST to ease your consciences and try to convince yourself that he had a fair trial by quoting rules, regulations, and pandering, I'm sorry, that was uncalled for, COLLECTING data to hang him ? . Why are you here .. it would almost make me think you care, but yet you have all stated very clearly "* delete" so I just don't get it. BURN and be done, unless there is some other process I am unaware of. Do you have to tabulate the timbers ? Why are you here ? I know why I'm here, to question the mad ritual. Do YOU know why you are here ? Sincerely, dw817 Dw817 (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Unless you are user:Cmatney, I think it inappropriate and presumptuous to declare that he is tormented by having the article he created nominated for deletion. Not all editors in this situation will have the same reaction.  As for why any of us are "here".  Here (AFD) is where we review if an article is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.  This is a form of quality control. An AFD discussion is based on the current consensus as reflected by policy and guideline.  If you believe that these guidelines need to be changed, then you you should discuss that at the WP:VILLAGEPUMP.  Discussing t here will not change anything. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unless sourcing can be provided from Reliable Sources, this fails WP:V. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

dw817: I suggest you look to it and LOSE all this puffery about QUALITY CONTROL. A good system would not need this service if a screening process took place, but you have none here so it ENCOURAGES others to slap down new entries as 90% or more will never make the grade, ever. No, you get back up on your high-chairs, deliberate, prospect, and "mediate" to decide who lives and who dies. I feel better with the knowledge knowing that ALL of you are at least aware of the shortcomings Wikipedia has, how they can be fixed, and how you choose NOT to fix them so you can continue to hold your positions of power. That is the greatest of pleasures to me. I did reach you, all of you, whether you will admit it to yourselves or not. I will close with this. Wikipedia is a marvelous system. It's a great accomplishment and I'm glad it exists. It's a shame it's also infested with a great many others who, while doing great good in many ways, also do great evil by seeking out and attacking pages that will NEVER make Wikipedia's cut. The builders should never be given the opportunity to build it.
 * Quality Control ? There would be no QUALITY CONTROL if you didn't allow every Tom Dick and Henrietta to be encouraged to build a page the moment they couldn't find what they are looking for.  I looked at your Wikctionary and you are to be APPLAUDED.  That is a well-designed system that doesn't encourage page building when something isn't found.

May you never be judged the way you judge others. That is the nicest thing I can say to you now. Closing up, You are welcome to reply if you like, that me and others may read what you wrote in your defense, however, I will not be replying back myself after this message and hope SOMEONE who reads this understands a fraction of my concern here. Final message copied and archived. David shakes his head and thanks Wikipedia works as well as it does as it is a great system indeed. (After I leave there is a sigh of relief, "Is he FINALLY done now ? Can we FINALLY get back to what we were doing here ?")  The brain maintains the void and my concerns, about the flaws in Wikipedia were NEVER addressed to THIS point. Carry on gentlemen. More awards await you in your deep state of myopia. Don't expect to get one for INSIGHT, however. Jingle on. *** Dw817 (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:DUCKSEASON--Savonneux (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Smacks of an ad. Carrite (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2010 (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.