Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliria


 * 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. I'm WP:SNOW closing this one a day early. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Oliria

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As written, this appears to be a hoax. It apparently is a fictional place describes as fact. However, a Google search does not find enough evidence that it is a notable fictional place to be worth keeping even when rewritten as fiction. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. It apparently is a fictional place; the article is written totally in-universe. Neither the author nor the work currently have articles (K. D. Williams is a football player, not an author). If this article were about an album, it would be speedy deleted, but there is no CSD for settings from non-notable works of fiction that are not written by the original editor. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per C. Fred. Even if this article were completely rewritten to comply with Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, it's not clear that the subject would be notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable fictional place in  Mysteries in the Locket . Dloh cierekim  04:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable, non-real place. I'd say we should redirect to the work or the author, but we don't even have articles on them.... Fyddlestix (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above/nom. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete no references available anywhere on the internet - seems like a solid hoax to me. TopCipher (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * here's one of several I found that show this is not a hoax. Why else do you think I added the fictional story edit to the article.? 😋 Dloh cierekim  13:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the confusion - I was rather referring to the content available in the article than the subject. That is something I wasn't able to find anywhere. For instance, if I search "Northern Pacific Ocean" and "Oliria" on Google (with quotes), I'm unable to find even a single reference - tried a few other references too with different combination of words but nothing comes-up as a reliable source to credibly justify the existence of the content provided over the article. If I may, would recommend (request) that if you have found any such sources that actually prove content's authenticity, please do help with either sharing them here or better yet, citing them on the article directly and you may refer to my AFD track from before too that I'm a huge advocate in having to 'keep' articles than deleting them - so long as they abide by the guidelines :) Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Establishing as not hoax is a long way from establishing notability. I simply read article talk and searched for Oliria and book title. Still NN work of NN author. Dloh cierekim  13:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My assumption is that the original editor excerpted information from the book(s) that mention the subject. Presumably we can't search online because of copyright protection on the book; even if the book were cited, we'd still be left with only primary sources.
 * Also, I was contemplating speedy for the article under G3 or A11. I did a Google search and turned up the book mentions. Even though I can't prove the subject is from the book, I also can't prove it's an outright hoax. I was going to give the OE a little more time to respond before starting down the AfD path; Robert McClenon was just quicker on the trigger than I. —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I saw a relevant to this article excerpt in Amazon Kindle. Dloh  cierekim  16:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete its not a hoax, but the book it comes from does not appear notable, let alone this fictional location. There appear to be no online references on the topic of this "location". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2017 (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.