Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Young Sensei

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 snow close. This didnt' qualify for WP:A7, but this article is such a WP:NOT violation and is written in such a fan tone that it'd potentially qualify under other things, likely WP:G11. It doesn't really have a snowball's chance of surviving a full AfD. I'm concerned about the amount of accounts opened just to edit the page, so I'm in the process of opening up an SPI that will eventually be posted here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Sensei[edit]

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

Character in a book without an article written by an author without an article. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing the character. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster _talk 20:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Article meets none of the guidelines for notability per WP:Notability. Seems to be attempting to generate notability through creation of this article. Onel5969 (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. Kristen Everetta: The Great Gazoo (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've declined the speedy, as A7 doesn't apply to fictional characters. We don't really have any good speedy deletion options for books and fictional things. The only time we can delete something like this is if it's unambiguously promotional or if the character is so obviously created on the spot (as in something I just created right now) that it'd fall under WP:ONEDAY. This does't really qualify for either of those, although this is somewhat promotional in tone at times. That said, I'm mildly concerned about the fairly large amount of SPAs editing the article in such a short period of time. In any case, the book looks like it should be notable, so I'm going to try to find enough sources to make an article for the book. If I'm successful then I'd suggest redirecting there. If not, then it'd be a delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am, however, debating opening up an SPI for this because this looks like it's a case of 1-2 people creating quite a bit of sockpuppets for an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually on second thought... this article is written in such a fan style that it would have to be TNT'd. I'm going to just give it an early death now- there's no sense in dragging this out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 17 October 2014 (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.