Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tortallan Fiefs


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Tortallan Fiefs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Relates only to a sub-set of a fantasy world. If it could be integrated into Tamora Pierce, that would be fine. Wholly unreferenced and mostly a list of names. Fails WP:BOOK  Velella  Velella Talk 21:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Tamora Pierce or Delete. Obviously non-notable and unreferenced and fails WP:BOOK. Vacation 9 22:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - No independent notability as a set of fictional places. The material is just detailed trivia and is not useful for any sort of merge. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 03:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Redirect to Tamora_Pierce - Detailed Google News and Google Books searches provided nothing useful and only books authored by Tamora Pierce herself aside from one exception here. There is no evidence to suggest any of this has been used in other works to be considered notable. Like most cases, the article is entirely in-universe and there aren't any significant third-party sources (excluding, of course, forums and fansites). SwisterTwister   talk  23:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 02:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 26.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  07:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 04:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2013 (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.