Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris P. Boucher

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris P. Boucher

Author, who wrote the page himself, has only one book published, and that by a vanity press. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Not notable/encyclopedic.--Jondel 01:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete vanity press is not "publication" in the sense that there are no standards. Vanity page. — brighterorange (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
it's a shame such a bias against self-published work exists in the information age, on a wiki of all places! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris@chrisboucher.com (talk • contribs) 11:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- On a wiki of all places, you have to be discriminate about what kind of information you include lest it become an overgrown repository of random information that doesn't mean anything. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 01:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Boucher, anyone can be published by vanity press. I could get a book published tomorrow, that doesn't mean I'm going to write an article about myself! (Well, I couldn't actually, because I haven't got any money. But the theory holds.) In order to prevent Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate repository of information, we have to have certain standards about what we include and what we don't. Sure, those standards aren't perfect, but they're all we've got, and they don't include authors whose only works, regardless of their merit, are published by vanity presses. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the inspiration for this page is not vanity but accuracy' -- this Wiki incorrectly attributed the novel to a British writer twice— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris@chrisboucher.com (talk • contribs) 11:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point, and thank you for clearing that up on the Chris Boucher article. "Vanity" is a confusing term — it doesn't mean an article's author created it out of vanity (though I admit that's what I thought you'd done), but that the subject of the article is not notable enough to be written about in an encyclopaedia that takes itself seriously. By the way, you may have noticed that the other people contributing to the discussion here have all signed their entries (click the "sign" icon in the toolbar, or type four tildes). Part of the signature is a link to each user's user page, on which they can put whatever they want, including biographical details. I encourage you to move the contents of the Chris P. Boucher article to your own userspace. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; vanity. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 01:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. But I'll no longer have a user page, as I have no interest in belonging to your narrow-minded group. Luckily as a non-member I can still edit pages. I'll restrict my use of this "Wikipedia" to occasionally visiting the Chris Boucher page and deleting the attribution of my novel to another writer. You can all rest easy now that you've deflected another assault on your "serious" standards! Thanks, Chris Boucher
- ~~Cry more noob.~~ I'm very sorry to hear that. :'( ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 02:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the page has no content now. Chris P. Boucher does make a fair comment about the other Boucher being erroneously credited with his books, so I will add a little note to this effect to the existing article for now. 23skidoo 03:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would speedy delete, blanked by author, work here now? I am eager to enforce my fascistic, narrow world-view in the name of the Wikipedia cabal (there is no cabal) as quickly as possible, after all, Also, if speedy isn't an option, delete as non-notable vanity. Lord Bob 03:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IceKarma ॐ 04:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject of this vanity page blanked it already. jni 05:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity page and not encyclopaedic. I would have said "userfy" but Mr Boucher has said that he does not want a user page or be part of the wikipedia community. – AxSkov (☏) 06:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe in including all authors with published books, but that doesn't include vanity press or "self-published" works. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not blanked as far as I can see. Still nn though, and the fact that the author of the article is the article's subject, and he just declared that he is only on WP to maintain his article, just screams vanity. --Last Malthusian 12:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. It was indeed blanked by the author, but the blanking was reverted. IMO it should have been empty tagged instead of reverted at that point. Friday (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book and the book's subject are more noteworthy than the author.DannyZz 23:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Shauri 14:51, 24 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.