Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairy alphabet


 * 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. WPSNOW  MBisanz  talk 05:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fairy alphabet

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

Does not seem to meet notability standards. Google returns very little related material, and it's all sourced to a single book written in 1974. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon further review, the cited book doesn't seem to be about the creation of a new writing system or anything. I'm thinking this is most likely one of those things made up in school one day. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly both Llythrennog Rosen and the alphabet are WP:INUNIVERSE? Artw (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no universe identified in the article. Even were it not this universe, without that context the article is unmaintainable by other editors, and, being written as if it were this universe, a falsehood.  On the gripping hand, attempts to identify the subject, and confirm that sources exist, have failed, and the article's creator xyrself has at most provided non-sources, perhaps to merely fob off requests.  If you can identify the subject and cite sources, you can rebut the arguments here, of course, and multiple editors all trying to do that independently is how AFD is supposed to work.  Uncle G (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete(ec) While I have not had a chance to look at this particlular edition, I am familiar with the work of Cicely Mary Barker, and this alphabet bears no resemblance to her books or illustrations. She certainly didn't write about linguistics. I suspect a hoax. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete failing WP:V and WP:NOT. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 18:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The cited source, which recites the English alphabet, does not support the subject outlined in the article. I suspect, given this edit and this edit, that the citation was a mere payment of lip service to requests for sources.  The false citation strongly indicated that this would turn out to be unverifiable, and a few searches for sources bore that conclusion out. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete hoax?  Chzz  ►  16:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Absolute trash. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:33, 7 March 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.