Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etherion


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Etherion

 * – ( View AfD View log )

PROD removed. I need some manga/anime-people here: notable, merge to somewhere, or nuke? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nuke This appears to be WP:OR and not even plot info, I do not see any place it could be merged as it is not notable outside of it's in universe context. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nuke per fictional magical weapon of mass destruction... Ehhhh Fictional element that doesn't meet any wikipedia inclusion guidelines for a stand alone article. Merge can be considered if not already mentioned in related articles. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no third-party sources to WP:verify notability, or to provide information that's WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete it is not even mentioned in the article for the work in question. That means unless the main article is badly written and or severely lacking in coverage this is likely a minor element of the work that does not need to be covered at all.--76.66.187.132 (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to main article. And no need to be rude to the new editor who created the page.   D r e a m Focus  15:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that a new article called etherion could be created about something totally different than what the article is about now. Google news archive search results from 1898 onward to a gaseous element found in the atmosphere which some did believe exist at that time.  Anyone read any books about elements believed to exist at once time, but disproven later?   D r e a m Focus  15:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to it if someone could find sources. But there's no point on discussing that now. It would have a completely different focus, and so the current article history would be completely useless. It's not relevant to deciding whether to delete an article about this topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that when this article is deleted, it'd be history as well, so there'd be no problems recreating it as something else, if someone wanted to take the time to do so.  D r e a m Focus  01:42, 13 April 2011 (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.