Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Wakefield

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. Missvain (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Wakefield

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No information on reception and page mostly contains in-universe information that do not have much sourcing. Sources provided are mostly links to Amazon. lullabying (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep (negotiable)~~ - Nomination fails to give a reason for deletion. Per WP:NEXIST, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:ATD, "The article is poorly written", "The article is poorly sourced", or "The article is too much plot" are not reasons for deletion. In fact, these points are even listed in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Dark knight 2149 02:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149: This article fails WP:GNG with no reliable sources to support the article, and the in-universe information counts as WP:FAN. Wikipedia is not a fan site so this information should have sources supported by secondary sources (i.e. literature critics). lullabying (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAN is a subjective essay (it even admits this in the second paragraph), and poorly sourced articles with too much trivial details can be notable (as covered in WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN). That being said, I was unable to find any sources in a Google search, so I'm striking my vote for now. Dark knight 2149 05:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, any thoughts for a "redirect" as a wikireader lookup? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Page is almost entirely WP:PLOTONLY with no notable information. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability doesn't apply to content within articles. Dark knight 2149 11:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reception section or like, no sources found that suggest it might be possible to write one. Fails GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:16, 12 December 2020 (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.