Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacula


 * 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. Courcelles 04:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sacula

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Unsure if this is a non-notable fictional topic (unable to find anything on Google for any of the proper nouns mentioned) or vandalism. No evidence of any notability. SummerPhD (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Got it now. "Sacula" is a non-notable book by the editor who created the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable book. J I P  &#124; Talk 09:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 *  Speedy delete per A7 criteria . The article is just three lines long, without asserting any claim of notability. The entry doesn't even mention that Sacula is a book! I've tagged it as such .--resident (talk)  11:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The A7 was declined (it's not a real person, club or organization). I don't think any of the speedy categories apply. For clarity: As written, the article is apparently about the fictional land in the non-notable book. Unless I'm missing something, this article needs to go through the AfD process. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood now, thank you for informing me. I'm a relative newbie, so I didn't know that A7 doesn't apply to books. I still agree with your deletion rationale though.--resident (talk)  12:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, this page does nothing to show it's own notablility, nor does it have any citiations to back up what it's saying. I Feel Tired (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - should have been prodded, Sadads (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The author has created several other articles connected with hir book that have been deleted. Said author has not reacted to any talk pages. My hope is that this discussion will bring community consensus into clear view. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't asserted, let alone shown; indeed, context isn't given, so it's almost impossible to make a reasoned judgement other than Delete. Cheers, LindsayHi 11:54, 24 November 2010 (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.