Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lantern Waste

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. Sandstein 10:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lantern Waste[edit]

[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)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: No evidence of real-world significance, and I don't anticipate any being turned up. DonIago (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are not secondary sources. This is not even an actually used term in the works on Narnia. Lewis is not Tolkien, the Chronicles of Narnia are not the Lord of the Rings. Even in the later we have gone too crazy in creating articles, but in the former it is even harder to justify mass creation of articles because it lacks many of the factors in background development and lending itself to normal study that make The Lord of the Rings such that substantial articles can be created on the places in it. There are places in the Chronicles of Narnia that have sourcing and analysis to merit articles, this is not one of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. There are no reliable sources or analysis for this topic. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence this fictional location passes GNG, as it is completely unsourced and a search brought up nothing usable, and it also fails PLOT as it is described from an entirely in-universe perspective. There is no good redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and entirely in-universe. see WP:PLOT Archrogue (talk) 19:25, 19 July 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.