Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Black Countess


 * 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 Speedy deleted at author's request. DES (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Black Countess

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable "authoress of the night" or somesuch. Vanity. Mentions being published in many "zines", so I'm not sure if it qualifies for A7 or not. Action Jackson IV 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Three links are on Myspace, one link is a publications link on Lulu.  I'm not pulling an A7 out because the article asserts notability, but...well, doesn't really have any notability. --Dennisthe2 03:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a real person who is a real writer....and playwright artist who deserves mention. Just because she is not in the traditional mainstream view of what society deems worthy does not make her unworthy. I am a fan, and follow her real teachings...and read her writings. Being on my space should not be a stumbling block to be noted. -Nocturna Rose Nocturna Rose 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC) — Nocturna Rose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
 * Unfortunately, "a real person" does not mean that this person falls in the criteria of Wikipedia. It's also not a question of whether she deserves it, it's more a question of whether she qualifies for it.  So far, there are no reliable sources containing verifiable information about her notability. If you (or someone else) can change my mind, go for it, please. --Dennisthe2 14:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Black Countess is a very noble, honest and trustworthy individual and should be deemed accecptable for Wikipedia. All her history stated is true and there are many that can substantiate all her writings and experiences in a court of law, if necessary. I know her personally and I can vouch for all that she has stated. -Rexxx Black User:RexxxBlack/RexxxBlack 12:00, 4, April 2007
 * Comment - this is odd, but the above comment was added by anon 57.69.22.246, not the above listed user. In fact, AFAIK, there is no user with the above name.  I guess you forgot to log in or something.  --Haemo 04:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hate to say it Rexxx, but along with a real person above, even "a very noble, honest and trustworthy individual" still has to fall in the above guidelines I gave for Nocturna Rose, above. With all due modesty, people say the same about me, but the only page I have is my user space - which is fine with me. =^^= --Dennisthe2 14:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the above arguments are very nice and all, but they have absolutely nothing to do with standards under WP:NOTE. I can't find any mention of this person on any of the references provided, nor do the links appear in any way reliable.  I also can't track down any online sources that meet WP:NOTE, possibly due to her name.  I'm afraid this article does not meet WP:NOTE.  --Haemo 04:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I will have The Black Countess's Publishers add information to show notability.

Nocturna Rose Nocturna Rose 04:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC) – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §
 * If it works, great. Please see the above, and please also remember that Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle, either.  Fair warning - if it comes out spammy, it'll get removed. --Dennisthe2 14:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm sure she's a great psychic or whatever, but the page is a bit too flowery to be taken seriously. Notablilty is a big problem, possibly because there is none. --Bongwarrior 08:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dylyte this excrescence for want of notability. Pop Secret 08:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless proof of notability is provided beyond a couple of fans assuring us she is. In any case, the article needs a serious cleanup, but probably isn't worth the trouble. J Milburn 10:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Spooky delete no reliable sources, no notability besides "zine"-type stuff. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of reliable secondary sources on the subject. Should she attain such and an encyclopedic article later be possible then she can come back but for now it's time for this article to vanish into the night.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and bury by a crossroads at midnight: Fails WP:ATT near to completely, fails WP:BIO by a leap and bound. For my own part, I'm getting a bit tired of seeing articles crop up based on someone's alleged secret identity, and wish that pseudonymic personas divorced from real life people were prima facie Speedy candidates.  RGTraynor 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, please, be nice, RG. --Dennisthe2 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't pass notability requirements. - Denny 17:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I was asked by the Countess to ask you to remove her from this online source of information; she told me does not wish to have such recognition here, in this place, and now. Thank You for your consideration...and I am sorry to her for trying to add her...even though I feel she should be...maybe some day when the world is ready to here the truth about the non mundane. Thank You.

Nocturna Rose 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, you didn't know. =^^= Easy mistake to make.  For what it's worth, you can also edit the article and place the db-author tag on the page.  I'll go ahead and do this with an explanation. --Dennisthe2 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

One very SERIOUS question however...please. How did you validate the Aset Ka? Please respond...Thank You. Nocturna Rose 20:20, 4 April 2007 (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.