Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fydellian Vessel


 * 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. JForget 00:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Fydellian Vessel

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

A sci-fi fan myself, I can find no mention of this in Google other than this article, no mention at all in Bing, so I'm bringing this to AfD for lack of notability and because the phrase seems to have not been used elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete How rare is it to have Google return only a single hit? That's the case here: this Wikipedia article appears to be the only place in cyberspace where the word "Fydellian" occurs. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
 * Delete. I can't even find any online reference to the story in which this item appears, nor can I find any bibliography for its author. It's clear that this term isn't in common SFnal use, at the very least. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and reference as a classic case of something which should not have a Wikipedia article due to a complete fail of WP:GNG. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This entry represents a valid and established science fiction concept that is commonly used but has not before been classified. It is a new specification that provides a valuable resource to explain and detail the properties of a variety of ideas.  It is not an original concept, merely an original semantic grouping.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.152.168 (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)  — 129.59.152.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - Regardless of notability (which I think this fails at also) if the information can't be verified we just shouldn't have an article on it; in this case I think that WP:NFT also applies. To the IP above, Wikipedia isn't the place for "new speculation", that's what blogs and discussion forums are for. --  At am a  頭 22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like an attempt to promote a concept the article creator made up for a work they hope to publish. Edward321 (talk) 04:37, 11 December 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.