Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legolas by Laura

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legolas by Laura[edit]

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

Only source is a TV Tropes article, which isn't reliable. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (message) @ 13:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sometimes fanfics can become notable. The now infamous "My Immortal" is notable enough to warrant a mention in one of the Harry Potter articles and heck, Fifty Shades of Grey started its existence as a fanfic. Legolas by Laura fits within neither of those categories, as it hasn't received any true reliable sourcing to show that it's even notable enough to merit an entry on the LotR article. It might get that coverage one day, but I doubt it. Most fanfics fly solidly under the radar when it comes to notability standards as far as Wikipedia's guidelines and requirements go. Online popularity doesn't give notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. On a side note, would this be speedyable under WP:A7 since it's sort of an online thing? Fanfics kind of fall within a strange category, as this was posted online but isn't exactly a website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a fanfic. As Tokyogirl79 said well, it's very rare when one gets more attention than from outside its fandom circle or is re-adapted into a more common story, and this isn't one of them. Nate • (chatter) 01:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tokyogirl79. This fanfiction is nowhere near notable, and I do not see future chances of it being notable. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tokyogirl79, on the merits. I'm inclined not to speedy this, because it seems to claim importance due to its, um, quality. I can't imagine we'd keep such an article, of course, but it fails A7 by claiming to be important. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:44, 4 June 2013 (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.