Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar 2117

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. Sr13 is almost Singularity 06:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solar 2117

Solar 2117 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Only one hit for this on Yahoo--a bulletin board. No hits on the authors. Either this is a hoax or something made up in school one day. Blueboy96 19:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Maybe speedy-able, maybe not. Still, definitely not notable. Or real. Consequentially 19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, simply seems to be a personal project. No references to the author's names found, either. Kuru ^talk 19:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Space elves? Space dwarves? Surely no science fiction setting would be that lazy... oh wait... the wub "?!" 21:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Non-notable, likely hoax or something made up by someone in school one day. Realkyhick 22:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Strange that this made it to AfD. Hoax CsD shoulda gotten it. Completely unsourced, lacks any real context, completely and utterly absent case for notability. MrZaius^talk 22:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete - WP:SPA, no external independent sources, no verifiability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, but note that there is no CSD for hoaxes. (CSD G1, patent nonsense quite explicitly excludes hoaxes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmdgold (talk • contribs)

Actually, G3 includes obvious hoaxes (as they are by definition "nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages"). This one isn't so obvious ... otherwise I'd have slapped a G3 speedy tag on it. Blueboy96 03:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, yet I would be very leary of going down that path. I suppose, that I would say that if one has to resort to a google test (or any other research outside of the article itself), to determine if it the article is a hoax then it is no longer "obvious" vandalism. Dsmdgold 10:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, someone's personal project, not notable by a long shot. JIP | Talk 09:05, 5 August 2007 (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.