Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enemies of the Secret Hide-Out

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. No sources and none presented during the AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enemies of the Secret Hide-Out[edit]

Enemies of the Secret Hide-Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I can't find any reliable sources, it hasn't won any awards, it was not written by an author that is historically significant, and it has not been adapted. Schuym1 (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Uhhh... John Peterson, the author of The Littles series of books, isn't significant? Scholastic Books isn't reliable? I beg to differ. I did this article in the first place because it was a non-Littles book by Peterson, and a sequel to an earlier Peterson book. Scholastic Books sold both for years, via school book clubs. Sounds to me like you're setting the bar a mite high, or being a little too selective. Zephyrad (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is the author HISTORICALLY significant? Schuym1 (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you never read any of The Littles. (I also see from your bio you are a teenager, and not a parent or teacher... and have had several of your own articles deleted.) HISTORICALLY (I can use caps and bold too) is not for me to say; that's up to history. If that is your standard, perhaps you should nominate him and The Littles for deletion also. Zephyrad (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see what me not being a parent, teacher, or teenager has to do with this AFD. Same with having several articles deleted. You don't have to be a a parent or teacher to participate in AFD no matter what the article is. Also, I have learned a lot since the articles were deleted.Schuym1 (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying you're likely too young to remember the books, or the cartoon, or the impact either had. Touched a couple generations, they did, and so did their author. And someone who's had several of their own articles deleted may well be inclined to want to see articles by others deleted; the tone you've displayed so far leans toward that. (I could debate what you've "learned" since, but this isn't the place.) Zephyrad (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again, being rude with your last comment. Schuym1 (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By answering your questions in a reasonable way, instead of employing tactics like yours? Don't think so. Zephyrad (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going by the guidelines, jerk. Schuym1 (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, a personal attack, by an admitted vandal. That'll really build your case. Zephyrad (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be a sock puppet. Schuym1 (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, you seem quick to accuse. Admins, feel free to investigate this "sock puppet" accusation. Zephyrad (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the account single purpose.--PhilKnight (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs a lot of work, especially in the themes section, but I see no reason to delete it. My opinion is that every commercially produced novel, from the Littles to Star Trek to Whatever, deserves an article. Lots42 (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree the article needs work; some bells and whistles (i.e., additional links, boxes, etc.) would help. Zephyrad (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Zephyrad, can you please shut the fuck up about me? Schuym1 (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. First a personal attack, and now rudeness. Does the truth hurt, or something? Zephyrad (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being rude to you because that is what you're doing to me. Schuym1 (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least you admit it. Please show me where I have called you a name (other than "teenager", which you used yourself on your user page), sworn at you, accused you of sockpuppetry, or done anything other than question your motives and bias, with examples to back it up. Zephyrad (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure what historically significant means. Articles have got deleted because the notable author did not make the book notable. Schuym1 (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you used a term you don't even understand, in making your case... and reversed your position on Peterson's "significance". This is getting even funnier. Zephyrad (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done watching this page. I don't need to take your crap. Schuym1 (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, care to take down the debate (that is, cancel the AfD tag), then? Keep it open and I'm sure I can find printed sources to further establish the book's notability. A quick Web search, which I suspect is all you did, probably wouldn't yield much, compared to an actual library visit or two. Which I can do. "Take crap" from me? You encouraged it, repeatedly. (Hm, someone tags an article, then bails on the discussion. Interesting.) Zephyrad (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enemies_of_the_Secret_Hide-Out&oldid=1069657712"