Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional setting of Simoun

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional setting of Simoun

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not appear to be Notable outside of the in universe series. I will also add that this goes against WP:NOTPLOT as nothing has been found reception-wise. I would have no problem if someone wanted to place this on wikia or userfy until or if some outside notability can be found. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete: ~~tagged for copy-violation~~ Rambling fancruft and original research. Pax 09:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text here has almost certainly been copied from Wikipedia rather than vice versa. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Upon review, the article does precede the 2008 archive. I'll revert my speedy tag (...and it appears I won't have to do that, because I never got around to clicking "save" in that tab anyway. Well, carry on, then). Pax 11:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I have NO idea what I just read. And it does seem to be written to where you have no clue what this is either. Wgolf (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even a merge (since it's too in-universe). Simply unsourced fancruft that doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt to establish notability or establish any value to the content. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What ^they said. The page reads like something you would find in a wikia article. —KirtZ^Message 21:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.