Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semi Buleman


 * 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 00:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi Buleman

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

PROD and PROD2 removed without explanation. Fictional character with no indication of real-world notability. Unreferenced article with no clear context. The series itself has no article and so it seems very unlikely that this character meets the notability criteria for fiction. Nothing at all in Google except Wikipedia. Possible Hoax? DanielRigal (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Only hit on the googz was Wikipedia. Absolutely no evidence of existence, let alone notability. Googling other names from this article also only returns Wikipedia. I can find no evidence that the series even exists. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Note:There are 5 other articles for characters in this alleged series: Eloise D. Wyatt, Hank Wyatt, Mina Loyals, Cleopatra Valkcalski and Dalen Valkcalski. I currently have PROD on them all and may want to add them to this AfD if the PROD is removed. Would that be allowed? In addition, I think that some additional characters' articles may have already been deleted. I am also slightly concerned about their editing history as there are multiple authors using the same basic article layout suggesting that this is either a collaborative effort or that there is some sockpuppetry going on. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of people don't like group AFDs, so they are often listed separately. Although for something as straightforward as this where it's all clearly made up, I don't think it would matter. The socking thing is almost a non-issue; it's just a bunch of friends who don't understand Wikipedia and aren't really doing anything malicious. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Including them now probably won't be a good idea as this AFD has already been going for a few days. If they are contested, then they can be bundled together in a single nomination and just also note this AFD in the nomination rationale. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It seems I didn't need to worry anyway. The other PRODs are sticking OK at the moment. I think I misread this one a bit. I thought it was somebody deliberately messing us about when, as Doctorfluffy says, it is probably just some kids who don't know the rules. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - as failing verifiability in spectacular fashion with no google search resutls aside from Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable at best, probable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:31, 26 September 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.