Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urville (fictional city)

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 of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 02:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urville (fictional city)

This is an article about a city someone dreamed up; after it was first nominated for CSD but no criteria applied, I proposed deletion. This was challenged by User:Skysmith. Original research, no notability, WP:NOT for original inventions or personal essays. Harro5 02:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (what a strange, strange, strange article). Joe 02:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not notable or encyclopedic. It's an imaginary French city created by an autistic man in France, Gilles Trehin, whose article I put up for speedy deletion. It would set a dangerous precedent to allow anyone to put their own imaginary worlds or imaginary friends on Wikipedia. It's bad enough as things stand with all the fandom. For goodness' sake, think of the servers! Think of the poor servers! I guess I should have brought it here instead of trying to get it speedy deleted as patent nonsense. Brian G. Crawford 03:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's just that patent nonsense in this case would have been: "We is live in Urville, magical land from FraNCe..." and so on. Basically, absolute jibberish. On another note, the creator of Urville, Gilles Trehin, had an article deleted which is now on deletion review. Harro5 03:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete this article is an extremely strange case. it certainly treats the subject in a way acceptable to wikipedia and seems encyclopedic. nonetheless, i don't think an encyclopedia could at all benefit from a fictional city that someone thought up. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Weird, weird, weird. Unencyclopedically so. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 03:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. autisticruft. youngamerican (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cruft as mentioned by many others; also so weird as to give me chills. --Deville (Talk) 05:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It appears that Harro5 and everybody else suspects that I am Trehin (which I am not, by the way). Therefore it appears that the case has been already decided and everything I might say would be ignored. You better remove Trehin from savant pages and elsewhere, then. - Skysmith 12:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruft. --Terence Ong 15:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 20:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete along with its creator. Nothing notable here. Just zis Guy you know? 22:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Put down the bong and step away from the online encyclopedia. --Chris Buckey 23:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I had imaginary worlds in my head once...when I was about six years old! And besides, if there's not even an article for the goof who made this city up, why should there be an article for something that came out of his head? It would be like having an article on For Whom the Bell Tolls but nothing for Ernest Hemingway. Illogical. Pal5017 23:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In all fairness there was an article about the goof who made up this city, but it was speedily (and rightfully) deleted by Harro5 under WP:CSD#A7. Just delete the city already, too. Henning Makholm 03:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh gotcha. I was unaware about that. So lets finish the job. --Pal5017 19:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sociological model --Masssiveego 08:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• SMerge to Gilles Trehin. He has a book (ISBN 1843104199). Channel 4 has a short documentary on him available here. He in mentioned in this article form Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. I'm not exactly disagreeing with the SD of the article though, as it did not profess any notability at all. kotepho 09:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep Book has been published about it... but its notability may be lacking. Roodog2k 15:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:21, 20 March 2006 (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.