Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homo perfectus

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 both.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homo perfectus[edit]

Contested prod. Fictional species featured in a not-very-notable self-published book. --Finngall ^talk 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Update June 23): Now that the article on the book itself has been created, I am adding it to this nomination.

Already voted to Delete H/P, but would agree on the book too. As RG points out below, this is a self-published (Perfectus Press -- no homo) book that promotes itself on its own website already. No need for Wikipedia to help A.R. Teest (get it? "artiste"!) advertise it. That's what amazon.com is for.Mandsford 12:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With Fire: There are only five unique Google hits for the self-published book from which this fictional race comes. This has got to be in the month's Top Ten for non-notability. Also a hint of WP:SPAM, as the external links push the book. RGTraynor 20:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prod was removed without discussion. While the subject of homo perfectus is widely discussed, this article is about a non-notable, self-published book. WP:NOTE for books, WP:SPAM and I think it's a bit of a coat rack.--Ispy1981 20:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't think of any other stuff to say, so Per Ispy1981 and Finngall. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though the article is in very bad shape, the subject seems quite notable to me. Maybe the text talking about the book is a bit of spam, since the book is unnotable. Ispy1981 said that the subject of homo perfectus is widely discussed, but that the article is about a non-notable book. So, why don´t we remove the text about the book and start improving the article appropiately? Lets take the coatrack, instead of deleting it all... ♠TomasBat 21:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do that, by all means, go ahead. If it's not done by the time the AFD is closed, it should be deleted anyway- the current content is not a useful starting point. Friday (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I´ve improved the article a bit. I´ll go on improving it, of course; but know, at least it´s in a better shape, I believe. ♠TomasBat 00:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is not notable outside the book and the book is not notable. I notice that homo superior (similar concept from actually notable Marvel Universe) redirects to Superhuman. To the extent there is anything meaningful here at all, it should be merged into that article. Capmango 21:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The "Perfect World Tour" may or may not be notable, but it doesn't have its own article. "Homo perfectus" is also used in some religious contexts as a reference to Jesus or to the "man created in God's image" that a few rogue Creationists propose existed before Adam and Eve. This H.P. looks like the offspring of Homer Simpson and Sinead O'Connor. Mandsford 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I´ve added to the article what you said about homo perfectus in religion. ♠TomasBat 00:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author (after attempting to blank Homo perfectus), has created The Perfect World Tour about the book itself. As it is completely non-notable, I am adding it to this nomination. --Finngall ^talk 03:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The only reason the page was restored was because the AfD process had started. Let's see — WP:COAT, WP:NOTE, WP:SPAM. Good morning, good afternoon, good night nurse. Realkyhick 03:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Majoreditor 04:29, 23 June 2007 (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.