Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Several Things


 * 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. clear consensus  DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Several Things

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

does not meet WP:GNG, could meet no.5 of WP:NBOOK if it exists but appears to be a WP:HOAX, google search brings up nothing, ditto worldcat search and trove (OZ librarys) search. article refers to 'Fairy Tales translated by Tiina Nunnally (2005) does not contain it.[], complete list of Anderson's fairytales doesn't show it,[] Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yes, that seems to be a hoax. Good eye!  HullIntegrity  \ talk / 12:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete – Definitely a hoax. This is the list of Andersen's works published in 1837, and "Several Things" is nowhere to be found (nor in any other year). Amazing that the hoax lasted for more than five years! --Danmuz (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per the guideline Do not create hoaxes. I have not been able to find any sources that discuss Several Things. The article was created by, who also created User:Hypocrisyofcake/Peter Hastings. Here is the article's text: "Several Things is a book written by the Danish fairy tale writer and fablist Hans Christian Andersen. It was published in 1837, just after he completed The Princess and the Pea. Several Things is a multifaceted work, dealing with a multitude of subjects, several of which are of interest to the public at large. It was not well received upon first publication. The critics had several issues with the work, including offense taken at its questionable content and long apocryphal sections dealing with apparently nothing at all." The last sentence strongly indicates that this is a hoax. Cunard (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2015 (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.