Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Diary

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.

After discussion with two users regarding interpretation of this debate, I have decided to delete this article anyway. I apologize for any inconvenience.  Denelson83  07:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Diary[edit]

Unpublished book

  • According to the article, this is about an unpublished book. The article contains much that is speculative. I don't know whether it is amenable to cleanup, based on its apparent existence as a stalker mod (if indeed that would itself be notable), but as-is it looks to me like a deletion candidate. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unpublished series. Excellent nomination, by the way, JZGYK - that's how it should be done! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just because the books are becoming a Stalker mod that means it is ground for a deletion? I can remove the information about the mod. I was under the assumption that Wiki-pedia was for all info about a particular subject or article, so I felt the need to include it. I never linked to the actual information about the mod, therefore there was no advertising.
    No, the fact that they are a stalker mod might (if the mod were notable) be grounds to keep; otherwise it is a shoo-in for deletion as unpublished fiction. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 16:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are pages dedicated to image boards and unreleased video games as well. What exactly is wrong about a book thats currently being written? There is a page listed for Harry Potter book seven. That book isn't even finished being written, where as The Diary Series 1 (books 1-6) is. The Author is currently looking for a publisher. But Harry Potter Book 7 remains there. I could argue that it shouldn't have its own page and that it should be included on the main harry potter page until released since the book is unpublished.
  • Two wrongs don't make a right. Many of those other speculative articles are also put up for deletion. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 16:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We felt Wiki-pedia would be a site to use (as most of the other pages) as a reference site for The Diary. Just as fans of image boards and unpublished Video games use it to find information on said topics. The Diary has a history, just like any image board on the net.
I do hope we can come to an agreement. The page is still a tad bit lacking in information as we make edits to it daily to get it up to speed. If its organization, please tell me. If its about the mod, I can remove it.~Seth Walker 24.53.55.94 14:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Harry Potter is very famous and the next book is pretty much certain to come out, and will be being talked about already. No disrespect but I very much doubt this book/series is in the same category; it can't even have fans if nothing has yet been published. This belongs on your own website. Flapdragon 16:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, fame and probability of release are the only criterion required to make an entry viable? If this is the case, which I don't necessarily have a problem with, I am curious what empirical scale you are using to mathematically calculate the probability of release for a series you haven't even read.-Chaossaber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.116.206 (talk • contribs) , at 17:15, 2005 November 4
  • That's just it, no-one has read it. Something that that no-one has heard of and has yet to see the light of day is, on the face of it, unlikely to be notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Flapdragon 18:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What is the definition of "unpublished" and hence the definition of "published" that is considered acceptable on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.83.250 (talk • contribs) , at 17:28, 2005 November 4
  • Presumably this is a general, hypothetical question unrelated to the matter in hand, which is an article about "an unpublished series of novels". Flapdragon 18:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is being discussed for deletion under the term "unpublished book". What defines whether any material is considered published or otherwise? Does it have to be in print? If not then what about Ebooks? Or any form of electronic basis that any member of a viewing public can have free access to (i.e. the internet) providing they know the URL of the material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.83.250 (talk • contribs) , at 18:21, 2005 November 4
  • Just because Flapdragon hasn't read something does not mean that no-one has. And your comment about wikipedia not being a crystal ball is irrelevant seeing as the series of works has already been released on multiple fronts including the page linked in the very entry you seem to only be skim reading, as well as mainstream outlets like Fictionpress.-Chaossaber.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.116.206 (talk • contribs) , at 18:27, 2005 November 4
  • Delete unpublished and non-notable. The reason for the Harry Potter articles is that 1. they will almost certainly be published, and 2. that they are already notable even if they are not published yet. Fame and probablity are, in this case, the main issues. By the same line, if Mr. X comes here and writes an article about himself stating that “Mr. X will most probably win a Nobel prize”, his article will be deleted as well. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have no evidence to support whether or not Harry Potter 7 will in fact be published, just as you have no evidence to support your claim that this written work will not. And let's not shoot around the probability of the matter without a clear and concise numerical criterion with which to make an empirical judgment. -Chaossaber
  • Publication status is a red herring — the issues here are notability and verifiability. Harry Potter wins on both scores: it is widely reported on in independant media (i.e., other than on the Harry Potter & publisher websites) unlike The Diary; also unlike The Diary, should HP7 not reach publication, perhaps because J.K. Rowling has developed a bad case of being run over by a truck, it will have been perhaps the most overhyped (and thus most notable) unpublished novel in the history of the industry, whereas, should The Diary vanish in a puff of smoke from a burnt out harddrive, there may be dozens, perhaps scores, of disappointed fans. To compare this unpublished book with that unpublished book is rather on the order of comparing the cover band that's been playing at the local pub for the last three years to Rufus Wainright. --Kgf0 22:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; in fact, we have no numerical evaluation of probability of the next Harry Potter book being actually published; we however do not even have a numerical evaluation for the notability of a web site, a blog, a movie, etc. That's why we have this AfD page instead of a bot removing articles. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without a numerical system you cannot say something is more or less than something else. Simple as that really. -Chaossaber
This article is on a work which cannot be verified by reference to independent reputable publications—indeed, it has itself not been published. It is therefore not acceptable for an encyclopedia. Links to personal websites do not satisfy the verifiability and reliable sources requirements for the encyclopedia. It's wonderful to note the enthusiasm of our new editors Chaossaber, Seth Walker and User:84.9.83.250; I feel sorry that I cannot support their current effort, but hope that they'll stay to write or edit good and informative articles on Wikipedia. Regards encephalon 20:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per encephalon, who's opinion I concur with 100%.--Isotope23 21:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per encephalon, with whom I agree entirely. The only significant non-wiki source I could find for attempted verification was this forum which includes a link to The Diary. --Kgf0 23:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unpublished, un-notable, possible promo.--Dakota ? e 23:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So the only reason out of that list of 4 "checks" that must pass for it to stay is its veriability? But isn't the fact that it has a reliable source, and numerous other sources that, if read, would prove the information on our entry is reliable?

    "Fact checking is time consuming. It is unreasonable to expect other editors to dig for sources to check your work, particularly when the initial content is questionable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. Editors should therefore be specific, avoid weasel words, and provide references, linking to the source if it's online, and giving a brief citation in brackets after the sentence if it isn't."

    We've pointed to numerous sources, all that contian this work. Including an online site that might actually be in the process of publishing it. These aren't personal websites, but more along the lines of Wikipedia that it has a porfessional approach to it. Proof that this is the material of the series has been presented by numerous people who are indeed fans of the series, and have been following it since its release in October of 2003.

    The point being that the Diary is known to a group of people, just like fans of a videogame or web comic. This begs me to ask how an Image Board like 2chan (japanese image board) has a huge section dedicated to it? Maybe I'm missing a small point? ~Seth 24.53.55.94 00:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment.
Published on 3-7-2003 on Fictionpress.com Diary: Realisation (First part) Copyright 2003 Bodster (FictionPress ID:332874). All rights reserved. Distribution of any kind is prohibited without the written consent of Bodster.
linked directly here
Published on 3-17-2003 on Fictionpress.com Diary: Retaliation (Second part) Copyright 2003 Bodster (FictionPress ID:332874). All rights reserved. Distribution of any kind is prohibited without the written consent of Bodster
linked directly here
Published on 5-27-2003 on Fictionpress.com Diary: Revenge (Third part) Copyright 2003 Bodster (FictionPress ID:332874). All rights reserved. Distribution of any kind is prohibited without the written consent of Bodster.
linked directly here
Publsihed on 10-03-2003 on Fictionpress.com Diary: Religion (Fourth part) Copyright 2003 Bodster (FictionPress ID:332874). All rights reserved. Distribution of any kind is prohibited without the written consent of Bodster.
linked directly here
Published on 01-24-2004 on Fictionpress.com Diary: Renegade (Fifth part) Copyright 2004 Bodster (FictionPress ID:332874). All rights reserved. Distribution of any kind is prohibited without the written consent of Bodster.
linked directly here
Published on 06-05-2004 on Fictionpress.com Diary: Retribution (Sixth part) Copyright 2004 Bodster (FictionPress ID:332874). All rights reserved. Distribution of any kind is prohibited without the written consent of Bodster.
linked directly here
  • keep. Guys if you think the diary doesn't have any fans then your sadly mistaken, how the hell you think Me(NCB) Seth and Choas got into the book? If you check fictionpress theirs a huge number of fans that read the books. You be making a mistake if you deleted it. - NCB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.12.187 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 2005 November 5
  • Comment.-I can confirm that I am a gigantic Diary-holic. I live, eat, breathe, sleep, and dream The Diary. I tell everyone about The Diary, and every time I do, they become fans of it aswell. It already has a large following, and given the fact that it continues to grow as more fans pass it on by word of mouth, it has the makings of a Cult Classic (no pun intended, of course). Besides, you know who else didn't want to make literature readily accessable to the public? HITLER.~Bloodcider — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.161.30 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 2005 November 5
  • Just because he mentioned Hitler doesn't mean this discussion will turn to that. That also means he doesn't speak for the rest of the fans. You seem to urge for a speedy closure to something that you probably haven't even given the chance to read. The sources are there, and we've proved the one law (Verafibility)that you've thrown against us to be falsely accused. Bloodcider's comment may have this closed, but by all means not throw this topic (not discussion) into the deleted category. We proved the sources, and nothing has been said. In all honesty all I see are people wanting this deleted. No reason what so ever, especially because I failed to see a written rule that CLEARLY states we cannot have an unpublished source. ~Seth Walker Drew 15:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthur more, I have yet to see someone actually check the FictionPress sources to verify our reasoning. We have so many naysayers here jumping at us, but when one person trying to back this up makes a small misguided comment its an automatic loss to the argument. Bloodcider's entery into this argument in not from one of the 3 main pro debatees and should be discredited appropriately. ~Seth Drew 15:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Guy and suggest speedy as well. A comparison with Hitler is a personal attack, and the discussion is clearly degenerating. Beside, Godwin's law really applies here: “once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress”. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be so, but I fail to see where the argument is degenerating. Once we posted viable sources to clear the one law that might of held this article back we never got a trrue response. This discussion just became a "Delete this, Delete This" post. We haven't seen any response from people wishing this to be deleted to give any reasons as to why the ARTICLE ITSELF should be deleted.

    Instead we have people finding other ways to delete the topic, other than trying to finish the origional debate itself. I've brought the topic back to the discussion at hand. If anything those in wishing to delete this article are contributing to Godwin's law, by staying on the subject I clearly moved away from. ~Seth Drew 16:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • In order for a book to have an article, it must be notable. I did go to FictionPress and can confirm that the book is there, but vanity/print on demand/free web publishing does not count as for assessing the notabilty of a book. Sell 10000 copies and I will personally buy the book and write an article about it here. This is really a numeric value as someone above suggested. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep So there is an exact defenition of Notable on Wikipedia when it comes to books and if they can have an article? I didn't see anything on the article having to be that notable. I did read that Wikipedia does acknowledge that Fictionpress exists. If that is so, then Fictionpress IS considered a verifiable source, correct? So then it comes down to, is Fictionpress a verifiable source? This question has be preposed numerous times, and every time it is ignored. Drew 16:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi all. Just refactored the page for readability. New editors may wish to read this page to learn about using colons (:) to indent their comments; using * places a bullet in front of the comment. If you'd like to ask for an action to be performed on this article, write "delete" or "merge" or "keep" or some other choice in your post, usually at the beginning. See WP:GAFD for further details—that's actually a very good document to read if you're new to the article deletion process on Wikipedia. Finally, please sign your comments by placing ~~~~ at the end. See this page for details. I will respond later today to questions raised above about the article & WP policy. In the mean time, play nice everybody! :) Kind regards encephalon 16:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seeing as myself as well as others have already referenced and gone to its availability on the reputable site Fictionpress (that even has Quiki page as well I might add), the fans have spoken out (some more intensely than others) showing that there is a fan base and it is in fact notable. And the idea of the 10,000 sold idea is negated seeing as unpublished works like Harry Potter Book 7 have pages with only speculation. Seeing as the Harry Potter 7 has not even been written yet (per the authors admission) 10,000 copies is impossible. Furthermore, unless this is a standard being taken by Wikipedia as a whole it's merely dumb to suggest it. The data contained within this page is not speculative and is from an already released source.

    And while it hasn't been published and brought into print, one could make the argument that seeing as it is displayed on fictionpress it is in fact published on the net. -Chaossaber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.66.128.62 (talk • contribs) , at 03:34, 2005 November 6

  • Comment. Amen to that - NCB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.12.187 (talk • contribs) , at 11:56, 2005 November 6
  • Comment. Ok, here's the comment I promised. I'm sorry I couldn't get around to it sooner, been doing stuff around the wiki. As I've said above, when writing an article for an encyclopedia, one has to have good sources on the subject one is writing about (in this case, a work called The Diary). Most encyclopedias have very high standards for for "inclusion": the subject must be noteworthy enough that it is a recognized field of study, or at least has several scholarly or otherwise good quality works devoted to it. Wikipedia is a very inclusive encyclopedia, comparatively. Where the Britannica might only accept subjects with at least several high quality books, monographs, these, journal articles etc devoted to it, Wikipedia accepts even subjects whose only basis is, say, a newspaper article (this does not mean the subject will automatically get its own page, but it can find a place somewhere in it). Do note that although Wikipedia is very liberal in this way, it is nevertheless an encyclopedia and has rules for sourcing/referencing that must be followed.

    What are these rules? The official documents WP:V and WP:RS provides the basic ones. Multiple independent sources attesting to the claims made in the article are strongly urged, although sometimes a single independent, very reputable or high quality source for a claim is quite sufficient.

    For an article on a book, these sources could be many things. For example, a thesis written on a book is a good source for an article written on that book. A book review in The New York Times is a good source. Critiques of the book in scholarly journals are a good source. A book written on the book is an excellent source. A magazine article about the book is an acceptable source (for Wikipedia), etc. Of course, the book itself is one source, the primary, but one generally cannot write a good encyclopedia article on the book if it itself is the only thing available—certainly not on Wikipedia, whose contributors are anonymous editors who cannot write original analysis and let it stand on their names. When writing a NPOV article, you'd have to write a balanced work, and if the book is so un-noteworthy that no one has ever critiqued or written anything on it in a thesis or book or magazine/newspaper article, that suggests the work is not suitable for an encyclopedia article.

    There are no works of any kind on The Diary. It's basically something written by a person ("Bodster"—himself or herself anonymous) and placed in parts on the net. There are no sources. To claim that the piece on the net is itself a sufficient source is incorrect: this is self-referential (I cannot write a story about my dog, place it on a website, and then claim that encyclopedias should have an article on my dog using the website as a source. We depend on reputable publishers who are able to fact-check and peer-review to denote noteworthiness for us: if for some reason my dog is very notable—the last of a breeed that has had a story written in National Geographic, for example, then yes, that's a perfectly acceptable source. But not a self-referential website I wrote myself). In writing about a book the book is always a primary source (even one only placed on the net), but it is by no means sufficient for an article. Otherwise, Wikipedia will simply be a directory of things and claims made on the net; it most certainly is not.

    For a good example of a proper article written on a book, see Oroonoko. Note the reference not just to the work itself, but to multiple sources on the work. Note the NPOV nature of the writing. Now, you might say that this is a bit unfair: that article is a feaured article written by one of Wikipedia's best editors, himself a literature professor/expert; shouldn't you be able to write a short stubby piece that might grow? Fair question. However, there must be a good solid reason for us to take the m:eventualist view, ie., why should we believe that 5 years from now or ten years from now The Diary will be a profoundly noteworthy subject, with multiple reviews, books, theses, or monographs written on it? Will The London Review of Books be saying something about it in a few years, in the way we have no doubt whatsoever they'll be saying on Ms Rowling's seventh? There is absolutely no reason to believe that, and we have no evidence for it. But perhaps. Perhaps one day The Diary will be famous and noted. But until then, until it can satisfy WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NOT and WP:NOR, I don't see a reason for us to how we can write an article on it. encephalon 15:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Negated by the fact that your staff allows 3 pages on Harry Potter Book 7 which hasn't even been written yet let alone published. Something can't be noteworthy until there's something there for that adjective to discuss. So... let's not pretend this has anything to do with how noteworthy it is. Furthermore, unlike Harry Potter Book 7, this book has already been released and made available to the Wiki staff via this argument. -Chaossaber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.116.206 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 2005 November 7
  • Keep You could find it on Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiteMan (talk • contribs) , at 19:34, 2005 November 6
  • Delete Having looked at both sides, it is unlikely this book will be published in print. This article need not exist until it reaches that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.75.97 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 November 2005
  • Comment You can't just say it will never be printed. We've stated it will be, and as of now it is released online. Even the Author has said he is working on the publishing aspect of it. I noticed a majority of the deleted requests are just previous statments, most of which have been proved wrong. FIND where it says you need X books to be noted. FIND where it says Fictionpress is noted and see that we've proved a reliable source. I looked at the other sections on Wiki to get an article cleared and we've passed all the requirements. This whole argument we've been refered to pages to get this article cleared and there is nothing saying directly what we can and can't have, minus the help page (which, by looking at, gives us the green from what it says). I want to see those who marked this for deletion to get the EXACT excerpts on Wiki's rules, and link them to this argument, since me (and numerous others) haven't found any significant reason for this article not to go up. Even after searching the rules page. Drew 22:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call us when the publication is complete; until then, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Note in particular the section, "and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred" which explains why several million rabid Harry Potter fans trump an online collaborative RPG novelization. --Kgf0 22:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Case in point. Harry Potter Seven and it's three wiki pages. It is not in print. So... do you have anything to argue that hasn't already been discounted? I mean because like you said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so regardless of how many little rabid fans are interested in it, it still negates your argument. Furthermore, The Diary has been released so it's no longer in the same category as rabid fans speculating on a book that hasn't even begun to be written. -Chaossaber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.116.206 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 2005 November 8
  • Harry Potter is written by a now "well-established" author. This Diary story thing is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.86.14 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 2005 November 9
  • CommentThis line of thought can be used for Harry Potter 1-6, but is irrelevant for Book 7 as it has not been written yet. Well established or not, I was under the impression that Wikipedia was not a crystal ball. -Chaossaber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.116.206 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 2005 November 9
  • Comment'. If you did any real research you'd discover that the dorms are on the same network as the labs and this specific address is coming from a room. Nice try at character assassination though. Perhaps you need a crystal ball after all. Additionally, I'm glad you have any knowledge of my campus' policies, none of which concern posting on message boards or defending my friend's work from a pompous little someone like yourself. -Chaossaber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.116.206 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 2005 November 9
  • Comment. Nice try? Right! Just kidding. Take it easy. --A little pompous joker (how do you like my new signature?) 19:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'. As a longtime user of wikipedia, I do beleive that your grounds for deletion of this article are rather, harsh.. For example "madness combat" a free downloadable game that HASN'T been published in any hard copy format hasn't sold any copies whatsoever yet it hasn't been suggested it should be deleted (url to madness is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madness_Combat)

    Also based on your criteria that the diary entry should be deleted, upon the same criteria should not also the runescape entry be deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuneScape)And yet another entry which should be deleted upon your criteria, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Dead the urban dead game. 'Wait a cotton picking minute, these haven't been deleted, why? because they are popular of course.

    Now just a moment, how can you measure how popular it is? by statistics alone? I think not as no statistics for these online free community based games are readily available or corroborable by any mainstream News papers or the media, so How do you measure that they are worthy of wiki, if its because they have a web location then I present to you a download link : http://www.geocities.com/bodster002/diaryseries1.zip Thankyou for your time, and please... read the diary you may just like it as it is a free endeavour written by bodster and supported by his community and fans. -Termin8tor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Termin8tor (talk • contribs) , at 19:54, 2005 November 9.

    This account was created at 19:28, 2005 November 9, and has two edits, both to this page. After the second edit, this comment was edited three times by 150.201.116.206 [1], whose contribs are almost entirely to this AFD, and always marked "-Chaossaber". I'm restoring the last version left by account User:Termin8tor. encephalon 20:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment for new users. Hi again guys. I realize Wikipedia norms and conventions can take a little getting used to. Firstly, there seems to be a little trouble with signing comments. When you write on any Wikipedia page, you can sign your comment by placing four tildes at the end of your comment. Like so:~~~~. (To type a tilde, use the key just below the Esc key on most keyboards). If you have a Wikipedia account and you are logged in, typing four tildes in succession produces your Username signature. If you don't have an account or are not signed in, it will produce the IP address of the computer you are using. Always sign any post you make, whether or not you have an account.

    Secondly (and this goes for everyone here, not just new editors), feel free to express your opinions forthrightly; Wikipedians appreciate your thoughts and the open exchange of ideas. However, please always comment within the confines of our civility and no personal attacks policies. These policies are taken very seriously on Wikipedia: please honor them.

    Thirdly, do not alter other users' comments. This is almost always frowned upon. Comments by new users are sometimes lightly edited by experienced Wikipedians to make the page readable in accordance with WP commenting conventions or to mark unsigned comments. Outside of such actions, comments by individual users should virtually never be touched or altered.

    Fourthly, Wikipedia is written almost entirely through the voluntary effort of thousands of editors (like you and me). Editors are not employed. I do not have any "staff" on Wikipedia; neither does any other editor. Just thought I'd clarify that in reponse to a remark above. If you'd like assistance feel free to contact an experienced Wikipedian, or ask here or here. Very kind regards encephalon 21:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Alright, let me make sure you guys that want this deleted know you're basic English. I have had the word 'publish' in my vocabulary for years, and if you do not know how to use it, please, save the world, and do not use it. Here is the definition, according to my dictionary and www.dictionary.com.

Publish

1. To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.

2. To bring to the public attention; announce. See Synonyms at announce.

Okay. Please look at the number one for a quick second, and read it carefully. Basically, it is saying that you publish means that people can see it, free or sold. Pretty basic right there. But, lets move to the number two.

The second number is the most important one. It informs you that publish means to bring whatever material to public attention, or basically, announce the material. What does public mean? Here:

Public

1. Of, concerning, or affecting the community or the people: the public good.

2. Maintained for or used by the people or community: a public park.

Alright, this one is easier. We are all people, even if we are on the internet. Yes, you are in a world with people, everywhere. So, public also means it can be in the internet, as long as there are people.

So, you might be asking, what does this have to do with the Diary? I'll explain it to you. You guys were arguing that 'The Diary' is not a published book. Well, according to the definition of publish, as long as it has been made, and people could find it, it is published. And the Diary can be found in it's website, http://www.freewebs.com/the_diary/ , and fictionpress, http://www.fictionpress.com/~bodster . Is that enough proof, or do you guys still want to argue? KiteMan 02:36, 10 November 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 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/The_Diary&oldid=1183368227"