Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scarlet Gospels


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Scarlet Gospels
Cystal Ball Goldenrowley 00:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  00:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Hús ö nd 02:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination dr.alf 07:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 07:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Th ε Halo Θ 14:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Rohirok 17:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.UberCryxic 21:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * delete Wikipedia is not a crytsal ballBenon 22:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 00:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral Yes, it is CB. Yes, the article is beyond awful.  However, there is significant buzz for this:  "clive barker" "scarlet gospels" gets 2790 (342) ghits.  Astonishing for a book that is merely being anticipated.  This is because of speculation that it will involve the death of the very notable Pinhead (Hellraiser).  If Harry Potter 7 (book) survives a CB charge, this probably should, too. &mdash;BozoTheScary 04:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I'll go one step further than BozoTheScary. This is a known and verifiable project, even if it isn't published yet, from a famous author. It's not CBism in that Barker is known to be working on it, ergo it exists in some form. But it does need clean-up! Bondegezou 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom despite BozoTheScary and Bondegezou. Wikipedia is not a hype rag, and just because the fact that he's writing it can be verified doesn't mean that anything else about it is verifiable. Once it's done and is notable in its own right, then it can be re-written, preferably citing sources when it is. --S0uj1r0 07:22, 12 September 2006 (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.