Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Ofelia


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Saint Ofelia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Probable hoax, as the only surviving edit of. Recently PRODded by User:Jojhutton stating: Can't find any sources for this subject. The only items that turn up in search results are mirror sites, some of them even including the (citation needed) tags. PROD was declined as AfD required in case she was a saint. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I believe it's a hoax. I could not find anything about this Danish "Saint", and being a Dane myself I should probably have come across at least a mention at some point. --Danmuz (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No mention of a Saint Ofelia (or Ophelia) or Saint Ascanio at Catholic.org or any other reference I searched. (I note that the original uploader made her a disciple of Saint Ascanio, and the recent change to Saint Ansgar by User:Habibicb appears to have been done solely because of the association with Denmark and the February 3rd date, but without actual reference to a source.) — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is possible that this is the fictional character of Ophelia from Hamlet, as portrayed in the 2002 novel The Prince of Denmark by Graham Holderness. As described in this scholarly article, "The novel is interlarded with medieval texts, for instance, the chronicles of Ansgar". Also, in Lisa Klein's 2006 novel Ophelia, Ophelia becomes a nun and healer in France. So possibly this is not so much a hoax as simply a fictional character. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I came across this article by accident last week and noticed that there weren't any citations at all. An internet search only gave me mirror images of this article. Also, there is no Saint Ofelia listed as a saint on any Vatican list, or on any other list anywhere. Most likely a hoax that should have been deleted by now. Unfortunately an editor on a "PROD removal binge" decided to remove the PROD I added last Friday. Justification given is  if she is a genuine saint then she would have an article. I agree with that in theory, but the editor has no idea if the subject is a genuine saint. If the editor truly feels that the article should not be deleted, then removing the PROD is justified, but to remove a PROD without knowing one way or the other is just lazy.-- JOJ Hutton  16:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * speedily delete as a hoax and a trout for the passer-by removal of the PROD template. Mangoe (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. It was me who removed the prod. I was not on a "PROD removal binge", neither was it a "passer-by removal". I would suggest that editors review WP:PROD, the profile of the editor they're insulting, and the fact that the internet is not the be-all and end-all of article sourcing before they make unnecessary, unproductive snide remarks. If they are too lazy to take to AfD (which is clearly way too much trouble for some "passer-by" prodders) instead of just prodding (which is meant to be for articles that are clearly utter rubbish or clearly non-notable) then I suggest they find a more productive way to spend their time. If I consider an article needs further discussion at AfD I will continue to remove prods, something I only do when I consider it is justified, either because the article is clearly notable or I consider (as here) that it needs further discussion at AfD. It is a slightly worrying development (and also demonstrates an arrogant disregard for the consensual principles of Wikipedia) when editors are taken to task for deprodding as they are perfectly entitled to do, especially when a reason for doing so is clearly given. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete It is time to delete all unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete without prjudice to re-creation if it can be properly sourced. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Just makeing an observation that this article is most likely a very good hoax. If that's true, then it would be number ten on the WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. And someone removed the PROD. JOJ  Hutton  01:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as probable hoax. Northern   Antarctica   ₵  02:15, 10 April 2014 (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.