Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Themedusacode

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. BJ^Talk 20:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Themedusacode

Contested prod. Book with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability for this recently released book. JJL (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Themedusacode (talk • contribs) 03:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Themedusacode (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

First of all, I am not a member of Wikipedia's staff. In fact, my status at Wikipedia is exactly the same as yours, no more, no less. Second, if the author is going on Oprah, you should provide a reference from Oprah's site. And if there is a movie in pre-production, we need reliable third-party sources attesting to that. And finally, I don't think Wikipedia accepts money that comes with strings attached, regardless of the amount. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As seen above, attempt to use wikipedia as an advertising/PR platform. This should be wiped out faster than small-pox infection, imho. Casimirpo (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence of notability, there are strong overtones of advertising, I can't locate any evidence of the publisher on the Internet, and I don't like "threats" of withdrawal of funding, which Wikipedia will undoubtedly survive. Feel quite free to reconsider your "major donations". Accounting4Taste:talk 19:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as advertising. Failing that, delete as not notable. ReverendWayne (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the Reverend. I'll forgo my WP bonus... Drmies (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. — ^\`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^`^/ (talk • contribs) 05:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE-- OR, DELETE, AND WHEN THE MOVIE COMES OUT, APOLOGIZE FOR BEING REACTIONARY. OH, WAIT.. WE ARE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.202.139 (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Help us provide free content to the world by donating today!You can support Wikipedia by making a tax-deductible donation.[reply]

Comment: I checked the ISBN number provided. Apparently, that ISBN number has either not been assigned, or too recently to be listed.-- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Spam. Iowateen (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS FOR CHECKING ON ISBN, WE'RE THE ISBN HOLDER AND WOULD BE HAPPY TO POST THE BAR CODE FROM THE BACK OF THE VOLUME, AND IF YOU CHECK WITH BOOKS IN PRINT (DRM ONLINE) IT COMES UP (NEW ISBN IS FOR RECENT PRINT EDITION). ON NOTABILITY: THIS TITLE COMES UP ON FIRST PAGE SEARCH IN GOOGLE BOTH ON SPONSORED AND IN EDITORIAL PAGES. EDITORIAL GOOGLE IS OBJECTIVE, JURIED AND NOT INFLUENCED BY ANYTHING BUT NOTABILITY AND RELEVANCE, INCLUDING ADVERTISING. IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A SELECTION CRITERION FOR NOTABILITY, FIRST PAGE RESULTS ON GOOGLE ARE MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN MANY OTHER ACCEPTED ENTRIES HAVE ACHIEVED EVEN WITH WIKI FEEDS. DELETING SOMETHING AS ADVERTISING DOES NOT GIVE OTHERS THE ABILITY TO READ THE VOLUME AND POST THEIR OWN INFORMATION, AND IT IS A TAUTOLOGY TO SAY "DON'T POST INFORMATION BECAUSE IT CAN BE SEEN AS ADVERTISING" WHEN THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF WIKI IS TO PRESENT ENCYCLOPEDIC INFORMATION THAT CAN THEN BE JUDGED BY THE READER-- IN OTHER WORDS, "ADVERTISE" AN ENTRY FOR COMMENT AND INFORMATION VALUE. IF WE (SANCTIMONIOUSLY?) REMOVE ALL ADVERTISING MOTIVE FROM ENTRIES, HOW MORE OFTEN DO YOU THINK TRADEMARK HOLDERS WOULD ENFORCE THEIR RIGHTS AGAINST WIKI? COPYRIGHT HOLDERS ALLOW WIKI BECAUSE OF ADVERTISING, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD AGGRESSIVELY ENFORCE TRADEMARKS AND THE VALUE OF WIKI WOULD BE MINIMAL. IN FACT, THE NONPROFIT STATUS OF WIKI CAN BE CHALLENGED IF THEY ARE DISCRIMINATORY IN DELETION, AS THEY ARE RECEIVING TAX BENEFITS FOR INCLUSIVENESS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.202.139 (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read the above comment when it is rewritten in lowercase. Not before. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete because:

The ISBN cannot be found via any reliable online source
A Google search for Gate Press Publications shows that they've only ever published one book, and that was 20 years ago
A Google search for "Medusa Code" does not bring up themedusacode.com within the first 100 hits (not counting the paid ad on that page, which doesn't count as "objective, juried and not influenced")
I can't search for the book's author, as the web site doesn't list one

While I'm tempted to also include the annoying nature of the comments from User:Themedusacode and User:24.117.202.139, WP policies say that I can't, so I won't. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.