Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CHERUB (organisation)


 * 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. One two three... 20:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

CHERUB (organisation)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is written in an entirely in-universe style and thus fails WP:IN-U. The entire article is written as an historical account and an incautious reader may easily be deceived into believing it is a real organisation. All the sources, save one, are self-references, booksellers or fansites so fails WP:NB in that there are not multiple reliable sources, but admittedly, only marginally failing. The one reliable source does discuss the in-universe organisation in a more than trivial way, but not in enough depth to source the entire article so failing also WP:V.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  11:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am the creator of this article. Firstly, you seem to cite WP:IN-U as deletion rationale, when in fact it is part of the Manual of Style. Perhaps cleaning the article up would be a better action that heading for deletion?
 * As for WP:NB, the CHERUB series is one of the most popular young adult series around. The Recruit alone has won eight separate awards. With regard to WP:V, it's always difficult to find sources about a novel's concepts beyond the original creator. There are no fansites - the sources are mainly from the original books and the series's website, but these are both written by the author. Alongside this are sources from Waterstones, the Telegraph and Powell's Books (two admittedly are booksellers but I don't see how this limits verifiability).
 * The concept of the CHERUB organisation is key throughout the novels, and is the sort of thing people are likely to come to Wikipedia to to investigate. Whilst there are in-universe issues to overcome, the article is far from disrepair, in my eyes at least. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 11:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited (WP:NRVE), admitting the author and/or the books are notable in no way confers notability on any of his fictional constructs.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  12:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep In-universe style is not grounds for deletion, although it can be grounds for re-writing the article. PatGallacher (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete In-universe isn't grounds for deletion, but lack of secondary sources is. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 11:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced unreliable bad article Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 19:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Removing all the in-universe, unencyclopedic fluff would show just how non-notable this fictional organization is. No significant coverage from reliable, mainstream sources (a mainstream source mentioning it in the middle of a plot summary is, unfortunately, not significant coverage). Badger Drink (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Smerge to CHERUB. There is no independent notability established but a condensed form of the material would be appropriate for the article on the book series. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.