Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerfnit

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. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 01:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerfnit

Non-notable fictional character. 52 Google hits.] Abductive (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN character in NN work by NN author. Happy Editing! — 138.88.7.48 (talk · contribs) _{13:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As neither the self-published novel nor even the author is remotely notable, the character certainly is not.DGG (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 01:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG ;) if he says del, it should be speedied. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable fictional character in a non-notable book by a non-notable author, and why on earth has this been flagged for rescue - posting of stuff like this to ARS is one reason why many editors, myself included, do not read through ARS logs to actually work on what can be rescued. --SpacemanSpiff {^Calvin_Hobbes 03:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, and spicy drinks to all. This could have been speedied, couldn't it? Drmies (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody thought this topic was notable enough to tag it for rescue. Perhaps if it had been proposed for deletion via speedy or prod, the same person would have removed the tag, necessitating an AfD anyway. Abductive (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not with a speedy tag. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
we need a CSD criteria that would cover this. sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just a nobody who reflexively opines to keep everything. sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable author + non-notable book = just plain not notable. Is it just me, or is it starting to feel like SNOW? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If DGG sez that it don't belong, then I agree that the discussion should be closed now. :-) — 138.88.7.48 (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is pure original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest you read Wikipedia:No original research as this article is clearly not original research. Edward321 (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment please don't go by my name, rather by my argument. I could always have a sudden impulse to be erratic. And I've deleted a good deal of stuff that has ended up getting restored. It can happen even in fiction. DGG (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone closing this would know that "Delete per X" is shorthand for "My thoughts agree with the argument presented by X, so there is no need need for me to retype them". Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 02:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, non-notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2009 (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.