Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calculus Mortuus Amulet


 * 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.  Singu larity  02:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Calculus Mortuus Amulet

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

Appears to be a hoax. 0 hits on Google and Google Books. No references. Biruitorul (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if it isn't a hoax, it doesn't seem to have any notability. Parkerjl (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fairly cool-sounding hoax.  Anturiaethwr (talk) 06:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Either a hoax or very non-notable. Either way, it can't be verified, so out it goes.  B figura  (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be a hoax. Editorofthewiki 10:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The reference seems totally unrelated to the article. I asked about it on the talk page but got no reply. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. I own this, and would prefer to keep its secret for myself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. This is definately a hoax.--Berig (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Stolen by rouges? As in Dark Ages admins? If this isn't a hoax, it's in-universe fiction and someone forgot to say so. Either way, fails WP:V. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Every book with any ref is in Latin, if you speak the language, then by all means google it, I have several books that I am going through right now to post more "facts" and it doesn't help that I have no experiance with HTML.. DO NOT DELETE, I am waiting for my 4 days to pass so I can upload a photo from a book FROM THE LIBRARY.
 * Google yielded me no results in Latin. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hehehe; it's a pity BJAODN isn't around anymore...Ben Standeven (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2008 (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.